Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 September 26

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. I am afraid I do not have many options to close it differently. Whereas the delete votes use strong arguments, sources are available (at least nobody objected to the last argument in the discussion), and the article seem to be salvageable without deletion, by just re-writing.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:03, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feathercoin

Feathercoin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Advertisment with all primary references. StipulatedFred (talk) 14:42, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 13 September 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) 02:24, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 12:42, 20 September 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) 23:29, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless better sources can be found. All the ones at the moment are either by the creators of Feathercoin or posts on internet forums. Cliff12345 (talk) 23:48, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Improve and keep the article. Are news coverage sources such as CoinDesk considered independent and notable enough? WSF (talk) 03:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Coverage is sparse and not significant. At this point, Feathercoin is one many Bitcoin type initiatives. No prejudice to recreation in the future if it actually catches on and gets significant coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 18:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The project is only half a year old and cannot be compared by news coverage to other cryptocurrency projects which exist for years. At the same time, Feathercoin is an established Top 5 cryptocurrency by market capitalisation and community size. WSF (talk) 09:16, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - Notability on Wikipedia is established with significant coverage in independent reliable sources, so actually the news coverage does matter. It may be simply too soon for an article at this point. -- Whpq (talk) 10:10, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - Most technical details provided in the article may be verified easily by checking commit history of their open source project at GitHub, though certain programming experience is required. For instance, the article on Litecoin has no better notability level as most of the references are either Bitcoin related or affiliated closely to the project. However, I fail to see it labelled for deletion or having any issues at all. WSF (talk) 14:00, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply - I have no idea whether Litecoin should be deleted or not, but it isn't the subject of discussion here. -- Whpq (talk) 03:46, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are a number of news articles [1], [2], [3], and [4] that look secondary and reasonably independent to me. The articles are from coindesk.com, bitcoinmagazine.com and theguardian.com; theses sources look reliable to me, but I'm no expert on the specialist press for this field. Overall, it seems like there are multiple RS needed for marginal notability. The article is bit promotional, but toning it down is a surmountable problem, per WP:SURMOUNTABLE. A marginally notable topic and and an article with surmountable problems suggests a (marginal) keep. --Mark viking (talk) 04:15, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Brown (Poet)

Arthur Brown (Poet) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Hoax article about a poet that was supposed to have died in 1991, complicated by the addition of sources pertaining to a real, living poet by the same name. I came across this last night (my time) at New Pages but unfortunately got sidetracked before I could do anything about it, and it has been expanded in the meantime. Of the sources currently offered, one (offered twice) refers to a living American poet and one doesn't mention the subject. The print source offered, "The Life of Arthur Brown" published in 1989, doesn't seem to have any existence beyond this article: no Worldcat listing, no Google results. And of course, there are absolutely no Google results in general that would match anything asserted about the subject.

While the history of article in itself shouldn't be a determining factor alone, this one is littered with single-purpose accounts, mixed in with bona-fide technical edits. While I was tempted to go for a CSD nomination as a hoax, there are reasons to go the AFD route: there is an existing PROD notice, which is unfortunately a BLP prod, which technically is incorrect, and the living poet may indeed prove to be notable, although obviously this article does him no favours. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 22:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 23:02, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete per nom. Obvious hoax. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:32, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails verifiability spectacularly. -- Whpq (talk) 20:42, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:05, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seattle Sounders FC squad numbers

Seattle Sounders FC squad numbers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article clearly violates WP:LISTCRUFT. Didn't know until now that there was a page containing a list of squad numbers by player, but looking at the results of other debates regarding squad numbers, I don't see why this page is any different. – Michael (talk) 22:26, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 22:30, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:NOTDIR, consistent with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/F.C. Barcelona squad numbers, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arsenal F.C. squad numbers, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of Manchester United's Squad Numbers, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Real Madrid B Castilla Squad Number Detail. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:18, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - pure LISTCRUFT. GiantSnowman 09:21, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom EddieV2003 (talk) 17:09, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Deleete - Pure Cruft. Fenix down (talk) 07:55, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:52, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michel Von Tell

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 by suspected single-purpose accounts or canvassed users may be tagged using: {{subst:spa|username}} or {{subst:canvassed|username}}

Michel Von Tell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No notabilty for an encyclopedia article. Self promotion. Sources are not valid. The subject of this article is a complete unknown who hosts a show on youtube. There is no information about this self claimed journalist, moderator, filmmaker, author in reliable media. Richardharrison999 (talk) 22:09, 26 September 2013 (UTC) — Richardharrison999 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• NOTE: The article that is currently up for deletion, Michel Von Tell is a recreation of an article, Michel von Tell, that was deleted through an AfD just a few months ago: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michel von Tell. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 14:29, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• keep Good sources, looks quite notable to me. Also there is an attitude to improve the articlee. Since when do we execute deletion-requests on articles who are under construction? Ginosti (talk) 10:53, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is it allowed to manipulate other users signature like Adniin is doing here? Please stop it!--Richardharrison999 (talk) 12:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no manipulation - Your insubstantial attacks against this user becoming more and more a pharse. Ginosti (talk) 12:36, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable. No substantial coverage in reliable and independent sources. There's a few web hits, but it's all either his self-produced videos, or forums/blogs/user-generated content. I can't find anything to show Bye Bye Ludo or any of his other works might be notable either (a creator of notable TV/film is generally notable, but nothing he's made appears to be notable). To establish notability, we need sources such as: news articles about Von Tell in print or online; reviews or other coverage of his TV work by professional critics; multiple paragraphs in published books/magazines/newspapers. Links to his own work are irrelevant. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:06, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

National Library, Imdb, about 1 Mio views on YT, Russia Today biggest news TV after CNN, TV of Paraguay, over 1000 FB site,

DVD, a show with many highly notable guests, isbn, movie, audiobook, some newspapers / radio and mmnews articles - one of biggest economy news sites alexa rank 900 of the country. 10% of this should be enough. And dont forget - switzerland is a very small country - less people then NY city no discrimination - also article is still under constrution. Adniim- (talk) 13:36, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable per others. This is Wikipedia, not Facebook or LinkedIn. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 15:45, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BIO

One of the following would be enought. take the one u like best
1 .Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media.
MMnews (alexa rank 500 of germany), Russia today, paraguay television and some more. see in article (witch was/is still under construction).
2 Has had significant roles in multiple films, shows, or other productions.
Films, audio books, shows, books, interviews, articles, big blogs etc see in article (witch was/is still under construction).
3 Has a large fan base.
the videos on YT we see got about 1 million views, the movie 100 000 just for example. not so bad for a country with 7 million people and 4 diffrent languages.
Adniim- (talk) 17:37, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia is NOT a popularity contest. And this AfD is about establishing if the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability, so instead of clogging up the page with tons of irrelevant text you should provide reliable sources that prove his notability. Writing that he "has a large fanbase" is just a total waste of time. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 17:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I gave you 3 points not just one. Every single one of this points makes it notable. thats the rules. not my rules - wikipedia rules. in the article are much more sources then in every second other wikipedia article, and ITs still under construction. i gave you reliable sources. or do you want to tell me RT and MMNews (alexa rank 500) for example are not reliable? And if you like it or not WP:BIO says IN CASE a large fan base would be "enoght" to be notable. so this point is not wasting time? so i dont realy see the problem. there is quite a lot. i think its enough right now but eaven if u see it diffrent. why you want delet it and dont want to improve it - finaly wait until it is not anymore under construction or wait a while and see how it evolve?? Adniim- (talk) 18:20, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not what Wikipedia's rules say. Nothing of what you wrote makes Michel von Tell notable because all of your claims are totally unsourced (and I'm talking about reliable sources), and are thus of no value what-so-ever when it comes to establishing notability. So go write about yourself on Facebook instead, where anyone can make whatever claims they want, because here you're just wasting everybody's time. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 18:30, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

what??? wanna kidding me? go to WP BIO and there you will find - i quote now the headline of WP BIO

Wikipedia:Notability (people), the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice" – that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded"[1] within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. "Notable" in the sense of being "famous" or "popular"

and later you will find Entertainers

Actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and celebrities Has a large fan base

Do you realy dont know the rules or do you dont want to know them??? and by the way - i asked you a question russia today and mmnews (one of the leading economy online news sites of the country) is not reliable to you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adniim- (talk • contribs) 18:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - @Adniim: if you'll scroll up a bit from the part of WP:BIO that says "Has a large fan base", you'll notice that it's part of a section that starts out with "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." This means that even if a subject meets the criteria of WP:BIO, they still have to meet the requirements of the general notability guideline. Also, you left out a key part of the sentence "Notable" in the sense of being 'famous' or 'popular'"—the sentence finishes with "– although not irrelevant – is secondary." This means that having had major roles in notable films and having a fan base are relevant, but they cannot be the primary evidence of notability. Please note that this is just a comment. I'm not arguing to delete this article or to keep it—I'm trying to help you better understand the relevant policies so that you know exactly what would be needed to prove notability. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 16:50, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:GNG. None of the sources are about Michel Von Tell (per WP:GNG and summarized at WP:42), or show his work has received significant critical attention, per WP:CREATIVE. sorry for the bold/big !vote this page is cluttered it's hard to see legitimate votes and new threads -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:25, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

pardon? what you talking about? all the sources are about him or the show? but i see no sources of the things you pretend!?Adniim- (talk) 18:29, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what kind of a witch count this is? One is writing the wikipedia rules new , the other says the sources are not about him but got no evidence and everybody can see they are ofcourse about him??? i gave you 3 offical wiki reasons why this is notabel and you just say its not and the 2 keep votes also just disapear? whats wrong here?

Sources about someone are different from sources by someone. The sources are all by Michel Von Tell. See WP:GNG, we need sources about Michel Von Tell, for example, a magazine article published in a reliable soruce by a journalist talking about Michel Von Tell. Not, for example, a magazine article by Michel Von Tell. This is how Wikipedia determines notable, by what other people say. Not by what the person themselves does or says. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:00, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Adniim-: None of the keep-!votes has disappeared, they're both still here, both your !vote and the one by the newly created SPA Frank.hofstedter. The massive walls of both incoherent and irrelevant text you keep adding just makes them harder to spot. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 17:18, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a keep-!vote by Ginosti hidden in that box with the irrelevant bickering. --Richardharrison999 (talk) 20:31, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP Adniim- (talk) 19:03, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable. Large number of sources but none of much merit: 2 IMDB (not a reliable source, and only a total of 42 reviews); srf.ch source is broken 'page not found'; 7 to his own YouTube videos; both mmnews articles appear to be purely based around the same YouTube videos. The final presseanzeiger.de again to the same YT video. I'd conclude that this is just a relatively minor YouTube channel. It is claimed he has a 'large fan base', but if 2,220 subscribers and 398,511 total views is counted as notable then we would have to have wikipedia articles for vast numbers of YouTube channels. Claim for "frequent speaker in various forums and makes numerous appearances on television around the world including Russia Today" is not cited - If he really is this noteworthy then adding some links about these appearances is needed to give this article any real credibility. KylieTastic (talk) 19:05, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP I can't see any problem with this article. All sources are there and well founded, WP BIO is exceeded and finaly the article is new and is getting more and more expanded. Good for me. Frank.hofstedter (talk) 19:16, 27 September 2013 (UTC) — Frank.hofstedter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

this is just one chanel you will find much more videos on you tube. i found videos with over 1 mio views.. imdb is not ALONE reliable - but in combination with other stuff it is. 42 reviews is quite a lot. i know many important movies witch not got 5 reviews. and again. switzerland is a small country. like i told befor. switzerland got 7 million population. mmnews? around the same shows? how can be 2 shows the same? there is one article about 1 show and one about another show? what is bad with this? how it could be more good to you? :) u say its a minor show. how much minor shows you know where such guest come all the time? i dont know 3 shows in switerland where such notable guests apear. also you got isbn, national library, audiobook, dvd and some more. whats up here? first they said he got a large fan base but this is not important here. no popularty contest like he said. then i show it is important - then you say it is no large fan base. sorry. but this seams like a witch hunt for me? in one point you are right. it is not ready yet. thats why it was marked as "under mainor edit - do not tough" when our personal idiologic motivated 1 edit account came up and made a deletion request.

Adniim- (talk) 19:25, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking me an focus yourself on supplying reliable sources. This is the same behaviour like in german wikipedia, which get you blocked.--Richardharrison999 (talk) 19:47, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What i say about you is proveable. all the offens you did to me is just insinuation. but dont start again this insubstantial. you started to attack me - stalked me all day long. spended many hours just to this article mr 1 edit user, told other users i am a well known sockpuppet and so on - this is all not allowed here and you should been banned a long time. but i dont want to talk with you anymore. so leave me alone and stop stalking me! Adniim- (talk) 19:53, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

no real arguments for a delition. most of it had no substanz at all and whats left is refuted . i showed you 3 points in wp : bio so relevance is clearly geving - : WP:BIO

One of the following would be enought. take the one u like best 1 .Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media.
MMnews (alexa rank 500 of germany), Russia today, paraguay television and some more. see in article (witch was/is still under construction).
2 Has had significant roles in multiple films, shows, or other productions.
Films, audio books, shows, books, interviews, articles, big blogs etc see in article (witch was/is still under construction).
3 Has a large fan base. also its under construction. and then someone had a problem with the yt links. for the notable guest section i took a tamplet from RT. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_today LINE 6  ;) exactly the same. if its good for them it should be good for in this case also.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adniim- (talk • contribs) 06:37, 28 September 2013 (UTC) finaly this article is very well sourced. like i told you - if you say something else you have to delet 30% of wikipedia. looked up just5 minutes. here you got a long list of journalist articles witch does not got half of the sources and rebility. Osaremen ehi james Larry Izamoje Chief Olu Oyesanya Meir Javedanfar Óðinn Jónsson Juan Bautista Rivarola Matto Leopoldo Ramos Giménez Luis Ruffinelli Alfredo Seiferheld Adriano Irala Fulgencio R. Moreno Sali Nivica Ludmilla Pajo Bedri Pejani Skender Temali Mirko Gashi Mirshahin Agayev Aslan Aslanov Kurt Thyboe Monica Ritterband Henrik Qvortrup Hans Pilgaard this is just what i found in 5 minutes.. if you delet this article be straight and delet 30% of wikipedia. delet them all and then i give you 1000000 more. its realy a joke to say this article is not sourced- special cause its STILL UNDER CUNSTRUCTION - a persoanl motivated witch hunt of someone who dont like this journalist. you can easyly see if you just watch his contribs here — Richardharrison999 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. and this is just another point why this article is notable. if someone spends THAT much energy on deleting it must be very well known. by the way. if this madness goes on this article should get an article just for the reason cause it had the biggest delet disc. in history.Adniim- (talk) 05:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete He is not notable and fails WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Man, this AfD is a total mess. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 18:45, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR is not the point. its WP:BIO and wp bio he matchs 3 points like i said befor - and a single one would be enough.

and i repeat myself. more sources more notability then 30% of all wiki articles. by the way - someobdy said the YT channel got not enogh subscribers and views to say its popular. here you will find the yt chanel of the biggest swiss tv station. SFR . youtube.com/user/sfr/videos this the offical channel of the 2 biggest tv stations of switzerland SF1 SF2 Schweizer Fernsehen ! it got same count of subscribers with 1000 videos then he with 40. also his shows got a WAY MORE views then the videos SFR is uploading. sry to say but i dont hear arguments - i just hear - i dont like it - or it dosent match something WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. this is no argument - this is nothing. if you want to bring an argument you have to what in there it is not matching.. and also you have to explain why we got wp:bio specialy for this case and you comeing with something else? Adniim- (talk) 12:59, 29 September 2013 (UTC) )[reply]

It has already been pointed out to you that you have totally misunderstood, or are intentionally misrepresenting, WP:BIO, so stop. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 13:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ah you are the guy who is trying everything to ban me, friend of the 1 edit account, saw your conversation with him on your talk page, tryed to do sock puppet investigation and searching hard to find a way to ban me and did made it. welcome back. you are also the guy who showed perfect you did not read wp bio and i had to help you with that. then you ran out of arguments and tryed the sock puppet investigation.

and again - no arguments. at all - your argument is - you dont want the article - ready :) i gave 10 good reasons why its notable - and you just talking around and coming up with stuff like. "its no popularity challenge". you have to STOP my friend - Adniim- (talk) 13:10, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, you haven't given a single good reason for why Michel von Tell is notable enough to have an article on the English Wikipedia, just like you haven't provided a single reliable third-party source in the article. Which is why the article has been nominated for deletion, and why this slightly chaotic "discussion" is taking place. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 13:24, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

i gave 10 - and you only TRYED to undo ONE of them - and eaven this did not work -

I brought argument - larg fan base - and you answered this with - THIS IS NO POPULARTY CONTEST HERE - = NO ARGUMENT- then i showed you - WP . BIO says EXACTLY THIS! SO IT IS A ARGUMENT - if you like it or not is not the question? we got a clear rule!! this rule says if it got a popularyty - a fan base - then JUST THIS is good enought to be in wikipedia. ready - no discussion - no interpretation nothing - if you like it or not. you cant write the rules yourself. they are still here and you got to accept them. SO STOP IT - ok lets be nice - we try it another way. proof us you are not personal motivated, constructive and fair! you asked me for one 3rd party source! if i show you a 3rd party source, do you change your vote and you say - YES LETS KEEP THIS NICE ARTICLE? Yes or no? Or you then quick ignore this again and searching for next thing? Adniim- (talk) 13:44, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per guidelines not a notable person in the spirit of wikipedia, and I agree with Taylor Trescott this AfD is a total mess and jumbled arguments and attacks... what happened to civilized conduct. I have edited it (wiki markup only) to assist with the fluidness and understanding. Regards ZooPro 15:27, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No coverage in reliable sources regardless of the walls of text being put up to support inclusion. -- Whpq (talk) 20:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:05, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MacDade Mall

MacDade Mall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I don't understand how this was made into an article in the first place. Five sources are listed under references of which only three can be found in the WayBackMachine [6][7][8], one does not exist and the other is a link to a Flickr album. As per WP:GNG this should be deleted. Gaba ^(talk) 21:29, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt: this article was recreated about 6 months after last being deleted; it failed to pass 2 deletion reviews and an AFD. There is no evidence of notability, with the (very weak) possible exception of the appearance in The Lovely Bones film adaptation, and that is insufficiently referenced.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 23:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails GNG, hence deleted previously. Then recreated - so I guess salt might be prudent too. Begoon ^talk 10:07, 29 September 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 -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:54, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Galactivix

Galactivix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable game, just released, no Google hits. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:47, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:48, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Sorry, but as the nominator says, there are no mentions whatsoever to be found anywhere online. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 01:36, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:46, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Update User:Jimfbleak deleted it under G7. The reason I didn't ask for that is that it wasn't specified that it was a website, as opposed to a console game. —Largo Plazo (talk) 10:20, 27 September 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) 15:06, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jay salter

Jay salter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable athlete. Has only ever competed at the juniors level, having retired at age 20. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, youth athlete only. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Actually, he is not just a youth athlete. He did play on the ATP tour; see his ATP doubles results which seem to be where did the best. According to the doubles results, he and his partner won the ITF Futures event in Frankston, Victoria, Australia. However, that is not sufficient to meet WP:NTENNIS. His junior results don't appear to qualify him under the tennis notability guidelines either. As well, I can find no significant coverage about himas either a player or a coach, although this interview transcript does confirm the assertion that he coached Marinko Matosevic. -- Whpq (talk) 21:01, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Greyhawk deities. Black Kite (talk) 18:37, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incabulos

Incabulos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This character does not establish notability independent of Greyhawk through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 19:31, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge into List of Greyhawk deities. BOZ (talk) 19:39, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge and redirect into List of Greyhawk deities. The topic is verifiable in multiple authoritative sources and is a reasonable search term. --Mark viking (talk) 21:14, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• transwiki to some fansite that would love this trivia. as for Wikipedia, the subject fails WP:GNG all of the sources are by the creating company, the company that bought out the creating company or by the company officially licensed by the owners of the IP to create commercial content - subject has received no coverage by independent reliable sources, leaving the options of merge redirect or delete. Given there is only primary source material and the suggested merge target is already also bloated with only primary sourced material, a merge would seem to be merely shoveling the shit from one corner of the stall to another, which leaves redirect or delete. I am uncertain there is any evidence of a potential search term to necessitate a redirect rather than delete, but given the history of redirects being reinstated without any sources to address the failures of WP:GNG if redirect is the option, it needs to be locked down. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:03, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - impossible to verify notability through independent sources. Simone 17:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Jaime Hurtado#assassination. Black Kite (talk) 18:37, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Steven Ponce

Christian Steven Ponce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Only claim to fame is killing an Ecuadorean politician (i.e. one event). DoctorKubla (talk) 07:01, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Jaime Hurtado#assassination. Does not seem notable enough for his own article. If someone can find more sources and establish notability, then the article can be recreated, but my own research does not show any readily available sources via Google news. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:34, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 19 September 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) 19:01, 26 September 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) 15:07, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Elissa Shevinsky

Elissa Shevinsky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Reason Jjcleary (talk) 08:37, 18 September 2013 (UTC) Article fails to establish notability. It says she cofounded an online dating site named JSpot, but that launched earlier this year and seems to have flopped. The web site is currently dead (server error) and JSpot's Facebook page only has 51 likes. It's not even the first Google hit for its own name. The entry also says she was planning to co-found a company named Glimpse, but that hasn't even launched yet and she already quit due to a dispute over alleged racism and sexism by her cofounder. All of the current Google news hits referencing her are related to that cofounder Pax Dickinson, except for one press release which notes that she is giving a coffee roasting demo at a local Maker Faire. The only other claim to notability in this entry is that she was a co-founder of a three-person novelty t-shirt business which received a C&D letter from the New York Times for allegedly violating NYT trademarks. The subject seems ambitious and energetic and may become famous one day, but perhaps it's a little too early for the encyclopedia entry. I'm new at this, so I apologize if I've made any mistakes in listing this AfD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjcleary (talk • contribs) [reply]

• Delete. Some notability in blogosphere and in startup circles but not enough in my opinion. Cofounders of companies that don't have WP articles are unlikely to be individually notable. jni (talk) 09:32, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 19 September 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) 19:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Lack of coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources that are aren't just incidental mentionings. Coretheapple (talk) 17:05, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:53, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Return of Ultraman monsters

List of Return of Ultraman monsters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is a list of mostly single episode "monsters of the week" that do not establish any sort of overall notability. There is no use in covering them in a list, as anything pertinent would be described in a proper episode list. There is nothing worth merging at this point, so deletion would be the best option. TTN (talk) 19:05, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a duplicate of Ultra Monsters, except in more detail. The details do not need to be preserved, as they are more appropriate to Wikia. The list itself is already present in the master Ultra Monsters articles. I agree with TTN; there's really nothing to do but delete it as a redundant content fork. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:17, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 19 September 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) 18:52, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Listcruft - little or no mention in reliable sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 06:06, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per NinjaRobotPirate and Nwlaw63.Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:02, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten (talk) 02:53, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Minsk Institute of Management

Minsk Institute of Management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

There's no notablity in reliable sources. Russian article was deleted because of this. Akim Dubrow (talk) 10:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It's an accredited degree-granting institution. That makes it notable per long precedent. Russian Wikipedia no doubt has different precedents and consensuses. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:59, 12 September 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) 16:17, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - We keep postgraduate degree-awarding institutions for the very good reason that experience shows that, with enough research, sources can invariably be found that meet WP:ORG. We must avoid systemic bias and allow time for local sources to be researched. The Whispering Wind (talk) 22:38, 18 September 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) 18:50, 26 September 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:41, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Madani Miya Ashrafi al-Jilani

Muhammad Madani Miya Ashrafi al-Jilani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Disclosure: The article is much shorter now after I removed content that was either unsourced or supported by sources which didn't verify the content. After performing WP:BEFORE twice, all I can come up with are two official websites for the subject, one poorly designed html site for a foundation he is tied to, and a whole lot of blog posts written in poor English along with some youtube videos of some speeches. The subject appears to fail WP:GNG at the most basic level. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:50, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:57, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:57, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment According to this source[9]: "He is without doubt the most eminent sufi scholar and one of the leading authorities of Islam today." Some PR but still suggests there might be something here more. He writes in Urdu so most sourcing is probably going to be in Urdu. See WP:SYSTEMIC and WP:INDAFD for issues on sourcing, Islamic Scholars are pretty difficult, even the highly notable ones. Not only a language and sourcing barrier but religious and cultural in how to determine the degree of notability. Do we do more damage by deleting vs letting be until someone with access to find sources. There does seem to be video and blog evidence this is an important figure. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that source is that it's his official website; they are free to claim whatever they want about the figure, which seems to create an issue with WP:SELFSOURCE. Regarding the videos and blogs, it's all self published and anyone can try to create online buzz. While it's theoretically possible someone could come along with previously unfound sources, the fact that this article was created by User:Shabiha - a now indefinitely blocked sockpuppet used by a career sockpuppeteer for six years to create numerous articles on non-notable subjects (most of which have been deleted) causes me to doubt that. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:25, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't look that it was his website. Agree with your assessment. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:52, 20 September 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) 18:48, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless any new sources show up. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:22, 26 September 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) 15:08, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tech2Buzz

Tech2Buzz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article about an unremarkable company with no claim to notability other than claims about website hits. A web search turned up no reliable sources. Psychonaut (talk) 17:07, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:30, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:30, 10 September 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) 03:27, 18 September 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) 18:47, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Start up article for a start up company with insufficient news coverage or third-party sources in that matter. Searches at Google News and several Indian newspapers failed to provide anything good except for The Hindu which only mentions the company briefly this. Note that the news article is from July 2013 and this Wikipedia article was created almost a month ago so it may emphasize how new this company is. In a large country like India, there are probably thousands of tech companies but I doubt all of them are successful or notable and there isn't seem to be anything indicating Tech2Buzz has been hugely successful or notable. No prejudice towards userfying or a future article. SwisterTwister talk 20:37, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten (talk) 02:55, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brittney Grimes

Brittney Grimes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This has a reference [10] but I don't think the subject meets WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR or WP:MODEL Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:25, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:39, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:39, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:39, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep No single smoking gun of notability but added up the whole picture of her many activities, she is outside the norm. Winner of many awards from notable organizations, first place in the Apollo show (though "amateur hour" it's prestigious and national TV coverage), CNN, a couple press articles, Presidential recognitions. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:36, 11 September 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) 03:16, 18 September 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) 18:45, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete I don't think the sources quite meet notability requirements although it's close. There's brief interviews (CNN, Vibe Vixens), a short article in a local paper, a paragraph in Ebony. But there's no book reviews and no coverage of her books in the trade press (Publishers' Weekly, Library Journal, Kirkus) and most (possibly all) of her books were self-published (or one assumes published by parents/relations). She is nowhere near meeting WP:WRITER. The list of achievements and accolades is impressive, but she has very little press coverage. A couple more non-trivial references would push her into WP:GNG status, though. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:21, 27 September 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:41, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Rafiqul Islam Khan

Muhammad Rafiqul Islam Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fail WP:BIO & WP:GNG - Jayanta Nath (Talk|Contrb) 19:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:46, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:46, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I'm not au fait with Bangladeshi politics, but is this man not general secretary of a major political party? If so he is certainly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:23, 11 September 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) 03:12, 18 September 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) 18:43, 26 September 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) 15:09, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bernd Out

Bernd Out (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not appear to be a notable filmmaker, and the article is part of a little walled garden dedicated to Erik Weihenmayer. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fellowship of the Andes: that article and this one were created by Pilgrimmpictures, who should be blocked for the user name alone--it's the name of the production company that made Fellowship of the Andes, another Weihenmayer move (see imdb), and the editor has also worked on the Weihenmayer article. Drmies (talk) 18:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:42, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:42, 10 September 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) 03:15, 18 September 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) 18:42, 26 September 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. I suggest a merge discussion as a way forward. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:58, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rules of Acquisition

Rules of Acquisition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

While it is possible to cite these rules (by pointing to the episodes they appear), they are not notable. They are one of dozens of minor recurring elements in the greater Star Trek fiction, but that doesn't justify an article on them. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I was unaware of the two previous deletion nominations, however my argument still stands. You can cite episodes and lines in books to prove that something exists, but that doesn't mean that it's notable. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:46, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:46, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:46, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:46, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. There's a whole book of these rules ([11]), so there is at least one source outside the episodes themselves. There are plenty of other sources discussing them, e.g. [12], [13], and several more of Google News. Whether or not this should have a standalone article or be merged to Ferengi is surely the only question here. --Michig (talk) 18:38, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I thought about that before I listed it, but ultimately I don't see what could be added from this article that isn't already in Ferengi. Pretty much everything that's not the actual list itself is well covered in Ferengi#Economics_and_trade and Ferengi#Culture, so it comes down to "does this list, most of which we can cite as existing, have notability that would warrant an article". Coverage usually implies notability, but it's not a given, and I believe that there isn't notability to justify this specific article. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect to Ferengi – The article only covers things from an in-universe perspective; no real world notability is asserted. Looking through first few pages of the book linked above, it also appears to be written from an in-universe perspective - it's even credited to a character from DS9 "as told to" the actual author. (Also, the book appears to consist simply of one aphorism per page without any further analysis about why they're "good" advice. Maybe that comes later, but I have no intention of being the one to read the whole way through it. This also may mean that the list part of the article is a copyright violation and needs to come out even if the thing is kept.) The keep arguments from the old AfDs don't seem very convincing to me. They appear to generally boil down to "Star Trek is notable, so this is notable." Egsan Bacon (talk) 03:10, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Selective merge: delete the list of rules and merge the intro and background sections to Ferengi. The rules may merit a section in that article, as an important part of Ferengi culture, but there's a lack of reliable independent and in-depth sources to establish notability. Episodes don't count, nor does an official tie-in book. The rules are mentioned in other publications, but unless someone has proof of in-depth third-party analysis, they're not notable. Listing the actual rules is unnecessary and I'm surprised it's not considered a breach of copyright. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:33, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I agree with the previous comment about the weakness of earlier AfDs: most of the arguments there would be laughed at or get you hit by a fish today. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:34, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're right - this is a copyright violation (we don't allow full reprinting of lists made by creative efforts.) We can quote a few select ones, to demonstrate how they read (whether this remains or is merged), but we can't have the full list. --MASEM (t) 03:48, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - I think a merger into Ferengi would be the order of the day. Miyagawa (talk) 19:33, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - There is a 2008 book, ISBN 978-0671529369 and a 1999 book, ISBN-13: 978-1582364612 covering this topic as well as outside mention such as this ZDNet article. Sorry, notable. It is a silly article but that's no reason to delete. Wikipedia has plenty of silly articles. TMLutas (talk) 22:03, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both of the books given are primary sources, reiterating what is in the show. Now, there could be more details on how the Rules were considered by the writers, but I'm not getting the feeling there's much outside the actual rules and show appearances in those two books. On that assumption, we can't use these for sourcing notability. --MASEM (t) 03:45, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are a number of mentions across the Internet in Star Trek related wikis and some news articles that use the things as launching points in analysis. I'd actually think you'd need to demonstrate that the books in question are primary and not secondary. Just asserting that they are unsuitable seems a bit weak. TMLutas (talk) 16:19, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• DS9 is my favorite Star Trek show, and the Ferengi culture is my favorite element of it. While watching, I tried to keep a log of the Rules of Acquisition, without being able to get even half of them. And now, 14 years after the last original broadcast, I can still find the Rules on Wiki! What a delight! Moving some of these facts to the general Ferengi article WITHOUT THE LIST OF RULES just doesn't cut it. Someone has taken their time and good talent to write this comprehensive article. Why is there a movement to delete it? This opinion has been expressed that the Rules are "not notable,. . . and just one of dozens of minor recurring elements in the greater Star Trek fiction, but that doesn't justify an article on them." It is precisely this attention to a culture’s makeup that makes DS9 satisfying and intriguing. These details give a richer texture to the series. The ITEMIZED Rules explain the values and outlook of not just Quark, but of the Ferengi people. This article is well written, already in place, and doesn’t take much space. As is well said in the article, 2 books have been written that itemize the Rules. That fact in itself undermines the assertion that an article is not justified on the Rules. Further, just how do we get hold of these books? After great time, research, and energy. Do we wait for one to come up on Amazon? It was a delight to find this article on Wiki, but I am not such a fanatic that I would buy 2 books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WannaBFerengi (talk • contribs) 05:05, 30 September 2013‎ (UTC) — WannaBFerengi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep - for the reason stated above by TMLutas and I'll add a further suggestion along those lines: Delete the Deletionists. I am so sick of this excessive rule thumping. What is wrong with these people? Get a life!--Achim (talk) 20:54, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Ferengi. It's clearly a documentable part of the fictional species and some details can be given, and the term remains searchable, so merging makes the most sense. --MASEM (t) 03:45, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The republication of the full or major portions of the Rules is a copyright violation, as outlined at WP:NFC#Unacceptable use#Text#4. One or two rules can be quoted to demonstrated what the list is, but because of the copyvio, I've stripped the list. Please note - this should have no direct impact on this AFD, but be aware that I have had to remove this text mid-AFD. --MASEM (t) 03:52, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What Star Trek episode published the full set of rules? What is the work that is being infringed? TMLutas (talk) 16:21, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • All of Trek fictional as a whole, in addition to the two books you identified above. --MASEM (t) 16:48, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - the section of the article listing the rules has now been blanked with the copyright template and the article is listed at the copyright problems board. If the article is retained, a determination on that material will have to be made separately. I note that copyright issues were raised at the talk page of that article several times, including a small RFC in 2008 that concluded that listing about 5 of the rules would be appropriate. More transformative use (as in by adding commentary) would be helpful. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:17, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The rules are collected in a published book. While that book is a primary source, the professionally published reviews it has attracted are not. (Yes, notability isn't inherited, but it's inconceivable that the reviews would not give significant coverage to the rules themselves, since they're the only thing of substance in the book.) —Psychonaut (talk) 12:05, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please provide citations for this professional reviews for these books; you can't just wave your hand and say they exist. Further, that doesn't necessarily provide coverage of the fiction of the Rules, just the books' authors; they might, but without any pointers to read them, we can't tell. --15:01, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
    • I recall reading reviews in newspapers when the book came out. Ten seconds of web searching brought up a review in the Chicago Tribune [14] for example. (Paywalled, of course, but you get an abstract and word count. Do you think the reviewer could have written 752 words about a book which contains nothing but the rules, without discussing the rules themselves?) If I get time I'll do a proper newspaper search at the library. However, please note that apart from book reviews there's also some scholarly articles which discuss the rules. One which discusses them in detail is Jacob Held's "'The Rules of Acquisition can't help you now': What can the Ferengi teach us about business ethics?" which appears in Star Trek and Philosophy (J. T. Eberl and K. S. Decker, eds.), Vol. 35 in the series Popular Culture and Philosophy (G. A. Reisch, series ed.). —Psychonaut (talk) 15:23, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Here's the full text about this: [15] (I searched on the title of the review). In which I'm reading that this is pretty much a book summary, not a review so much, and basically are details that do support the Rules, but in that sense, this still makes much better sense to talk about the Rules in context of the Ferengi themselves and their development as the book hints to, in that the Rules are part of making the Ferengi (specifically "Behr, who was born and raised in the Bronx and counts the TV series "Bret Maverick" and "Fame" among his pre-"Trek" writing credits, explains that the rules were hatched when it was decided the once-nefarious Ferengi required a cultural point of view, a philosophy by which they were guided."). --MASEM (t) 16:39, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The sources given above are sufficient. That the content of a review primarily summarizes the book does not make it less of a review--we judge by the fact it is covered substantially by a RS, not by what the review says. DGG ( talk ) 22:27, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:56, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moazzam Mirza

Moazzam Mirza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is a repeatedly recreated and deleted article and was also salted for a while. I'm bringing it so soon to AfD as I've seen prior versions over the past few years and there's no real difference in this. No new reliable source references included (only blog and user contents sites) or available in a search either. It has also twice been deleted by a PROD, so not eligible for that. —SpacemanSpiff 17:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 17:42, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 17:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete obvious, but I've already deleted 2 articles by this editor as blatant copyvio, and this article was created yesterday, but an identical blog post is dated to the 24th.[16]. This post[17] is in part about Islamic Call & Guidance Foundation, and see the promotion in Talk:Islamic Call & Guidance Foundation. I expect to find a lot more copyvio. Dougweller (talk) 14:02, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no reliable sources found to establish notability of this person. All refs in the article are unreliable - blog posts or user-editable sites.Dialectric (talk) 13:00, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Mr. Spiff please not delete my pages i am give most of references like Moazzam Mirza page, pleace... Please , no delete„ please Mr. spiff... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beypeople (talk • contribs) 05:59, September 29, 2013‎ (UTC)

• Comment Even the version created by Beypeople 11:09, 1 September 2012 was a copy of a 2011 blog post[18] by a "BegPeople" who is apparently the same editor, see User:Beypeople He's copying his own material though in this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs)
  • Comment Meant to add that the best idea is not to dl for copyvio as it seems to be the article creator's original material, but carry on through AfD and salt if the decision is to delete. Dougweller (talk) 08:46, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Potential copyvio issues aside, fails WP:ARTIST and WP:GNG. Abecedare (talk) 01:31, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:11, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

James Goldstein

James Goldstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

non-notable living person Bricology (talk) 17:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Goldstein's alleged notability is twofold: he is an "NBA superfan" who attends many basketball games, and he owns a much-photographed modernist house. Neither of these meet the standards of WP:N. The vast majority of the article reads like a PR release or a human interest story. Bricology (talk) 17:45, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notability is based on coverage in independent sources, and I think Goldstein would qualify for an article. The article was started in 2006, but Goldstein is still being discussed in the media (here, here and here, for example). Goldstein even wrote a column for NBA.com [19], and while that probably wouldn't count as an independent source, it does indicate that he has earned a place in NBA lore. Zagalejo^^^ 05:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Surely notability does not merely consist of "coverage in independent sources". There's an infinite number of "independent sources" (blogs, zines, etc.), but even if 3 of them every year mention some otherwise non-notable character, real or fictional, that does not confer sufficient notability to warrant a lengthy Wiki. Goldstein seems to be "famous" for being noticed, and therefore, gets mentioned here and there, like the fan who always shows up for Red Sox games wearing a giant mohawk wig. Noticeable and noticed, sure. Notable? Not really. And as far as being part of "NBA lore" goes -- all sports have their own "lore". But who cares about preserving the lore of someone who was a "superfan" of cricket test matches in Australia in the 1850s-1880s? That's the level of "notability" we're talking about here. Underneath it all, Goldstein is nothing more than a rich basketball fan. The very most that he deserves to have on WP is a brief article acknowledging his ubiquity, rather than the lengthy human interest story-cum-press release that exists now. And by encouraging articles about otherwise non-notable people like Goldstein, we might as well start writing wikis about the hundreds of other sports fans who have been "noticed" by the media. But somehow I doubt that this was what Denis Diderot had in mind when he created the first encyclopedia. Bricology (talk) 08:39, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, we do have the category sports spectators, which is mostly people with similar claims to notability (Crazy Ray, Rollen Stewart, etc). Yes, I know, "other crap exists", but at least a few of those articles have been to AFD and survived, so there's evidence that the community tolerates such pages - as long as basic sourcing requirements are met. (Frankly, I'd be more interested in reading about a 19th century cricket superfan than any actual cricket players.) Zagalejo^^^ 01:15, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Good grief -- a "sports spectators" category?! Idiocracy has arrived. How long before we have a "TV spectators" category? Will the "number 1 'Breaking Bad' fan" get their own Wiki? Anyway, if Goldstein is judged to have enough "notability" (by the currently debased standards) to warrant an article, I'll acquiesce. But I can't help feeling a bit disgusted with any so-called encyclopedia that would enable the glorification of such trivial "notability". And I doubt that encyclopedists like Pliny the Elder, M. Diderot or Herren Funk & Wagnalls would've been much impressed. Bricology (talk) 07:14, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This is the kind of content Wikipedia has had for years. And Pliny the Elder didn't even have electricity, so lord knows what he'd think about anything on the internet today. Zagalejo^^^ 07:54, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "And Pliny the Elder didn't even have electricity..." er...no shit. Neither did Diderot. My point (which I thought was obvious) was that the men responsible for the most important encyclopedia of the past 3 millennia would never have considered a sports fan to be worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia.Bricology (talk) 08:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, I got your point. What I'm trying to say is that Wikipedia does not have the same limitations as reference works created hundreds of years ago. Anyway, it would be nice to cite some specific Wikipedia guidelines, rather than guessing what dead people would think. This feels like an AfD discussion from 2005. Zagalejo^^^ 00:04, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I am wondering how Goldstein made his money and why he is so secretive about this. The silly article should be deleted instantly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.235.153 (talk) 12:24, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Because he is secretive about his money? Zagalejo^^^ 18:59, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep An odd article to be on Wikipedia? Maybe, but that's the beauty of this website; people can go here for information on esoteric topics assuming they pass GNG, which this man seems to do. Jrcla2 (talk) 18:17, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (Note: Nominators of articles for deletion cannot !vote again. We already know what your stance is, that's why you nominated it. This is duplicate vote-stacking.) I would entirely disagree with your claim that "the beauty of WP" is that it contains worthless articles like "notable sports fans". Instead, such articles cheapen WP and reduce it to a mere compendium of trivia. Bricology (talk) 08:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - He's being noted as a superfan over a sustained period of time as established by coverage in independent reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 21:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:12, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unscientific claims in religious scriptures

Unscientific claims in religious scriptures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Apart from the probability of creating a lot of unseemly bickering on its talk page, I think this should be deleted because since one should not be surprised by scientific untruths in religious scriptures such a list is inherently pointless. TheLongTone (talk) 17:08, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • Article contributor's response: wOw ! Our Dear TheLongTone believes that "one should not be surprised by scientific untruths in religious scriptures" and "such a list is inherently pointless". Well Dear, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, whose readers are Humans. Well, let Me tell You some interesting facts about the Humans: billions of us holds strong faith in "religious scriptures". Article Christianity says: "Christianity is the world's largest religion, with approximately 2.2 billion adherents, known as Christians." Article Buddhism says: "Estimates range from 350 million to 1.6 billion, with 350–550 million the most widely accepted figure. Buddhism is also recognized as one of the fastest growing religions in the world." Article Hinduism says: "Hinduism, with about one billion followers (950 million estimated in India), is the world's third largest religion, after Christianity and Islam." (To Me, it is a little surprising that Cited Source suggests Buddhism's followers count is stated to be lesser than that of Hinduism). Shall I list a few more. The estimated count of theists is already in billions. And, I Am assuming good faith that the Sources Cited in the above-mentioned WP Articles on Religion meets the standards of Wikipedia. All the theists are supposed to have faith in their religion, and I strongly believe it is no less surprising, or if may say, no less interest to be aware of the established scientific facts that contradicts with what has been stated in their religious scriptures. I believe that even if You see the Article as "pointless", You are a one individual person. And, being aware of the super-large readers' count (theist, atheists, and others) Wikipedia has, the Article is most definitely not "pointless" to Wikipedia's theist readers, and I also believe that the Article is not utterly "pointless" to agnosticists, atheists, anti-theists as well. I contest Your very use of the word: "pointless". I maintain that creating the Articles was not a "pointless" move, and keeping the Articles will also not be a "pointless" move. ← Abstruce 04:11, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete While the topic of relations between science and religion is very notable (and well-covered in many WP articles), a list of instances is a product of original research. And to meet the NPOV standards of WP we really should include instances where statements in scripture are in line with science. Kitfoxxe (talk) 21:39, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article contributor's response: Hi Kitfoxxe ! You says: "And to meet the NPOV standards of WP we really should include instances where statements in scripture are in line with science." So, You are actually advocating listing the "Scientific claims in religious scriptures" and sees that in accordance with the NPOV policy, but simultaneously sees listing the "Unscientific claims in religious scriptures" (with References) in contradiction with the NPOV policy ?! That is not a good way to go ! I must say that I truly doubt Your sincerity ! I won't contest Your creation of the article "Scientific claims in religious scriptures", but I think that it may not be of that much interest to readers as "Unscientific claims in religious scriptures" is. ← Abstruce 04:11, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He is saying, if we have a list of unscientific claims, we would also need a list of scientific claims, or claims that are consistent with modern science. e.g. “I built the heaven with power and it is I, who am expanding it.” Qur’an,51:47, is often interpreted by Islamic scholars to refer to the Expansion of the universe.Martin451 (talk) 06:57, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article contributor's comments: Dear Martin, We cannot list "I built heaven with power...." because the Big Bang (and Big Chill & Big Freeze also) is still considered a theory and not an established scientific fact (hypothesis → theory → fact), so the quote, for now, doesn't fall under the title of the Article. Thanks !! ← Abstruce 02:46, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read Scientific theory before you start talking about the difference between theory and fact in scientific claims. Scientists use the word "Theory" in a different way to common usage, and often use theory when others would use fact. The expansion of the universe is recognised enough that this could be included in a list of scientific claims. However even if that one could not, then I am sure there are others, especially from Islamic scholars talking about the Qur'an.Martin451 (talk) 14:36, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and Kitfoxxe. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:33, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • May I respectfully ask You to share Your view-points also ?! ← Abstruce 04:11, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem is that some of the alleged claims don't even purport to be descriptions of fact, but are prophecies. For example, "the moon shall not cause her light to shine" may have been written by a person who presumed that the moon does emit its own light, but all it actually claims is that at some future time, the moon will not cause its light to shine. Since the moon does not, in fact, cause light to shine, the statement is literally true albeit not in the way that the prophet meant it. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: I have responded to the concerns of the Users who does not support keeping the Article. Please have some patience, and I will continue to develop the Article. Yet, I AM ready to respond to any further concerns, if any ! Thanks !! ← Abstruce 04:21, 27 September 2013 (UTC) Delete:I think We could have developed a wonderful Article, but respecting some of the nice arguments made in the consensus, I think I don't want to text any more comments, here. Thanks !! ← Abstruce 02:46, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is very much WP:Point of view and WP:Original Research (WP:SYNTH). It is also impossibly broad in its subject material, arguments from the bible alone could probably create many massive articles. First the bible is often regarded by Christians as not being literal, things like "The four corners of The Earth." are regarded as a metaphor by many, and not a strict interpretation that the world is flat, arguing a metaphor is unscientific is difficult.

According to a strict interpretation of the bible, the Earth is 6000 years old. You may think this is unscientific, and point to evidence that the Earth is a lot older. The fossil record and geological data show this, but a Young Earth creationist would claim a different interpretation based upon a catastrophic great flood which made the fossils and sediments. You may claim radiocarbon data, but a YE creationist would point to examples where this is flawed, and that it does not work beyond 20,000 years. You could claim the light from the distant galaxies took billions of years to reach here, but a YE creationist would claim the speed of light was different in the early universe.

This is just too impossibly broad and open to interpretation for such a simple claim as being "unscientific".Martin451 (talk) 06:48, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • Article contributor's comments: Dear Martin, do have a look, there. Dear Friend, if a YE creationist may claim the speed of light was different in the early universe, then also a YE creationist would only be able to point towards a hypothesis. And, there is difference between the dictionary meaning of hypothesis, theory and fact. He wouldn't be able to play around ! But yes, going on with the Article, at some point of time, will lead to split of sections themselves as separate articles; the size of content may be dealt with but Edit warring could be more serious than ever, because not everyone is willing to understand the difference between scientific theories and scientific facts. Thanks !! ← Abstruce 02:46, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The point is, an article stating "this is wrong, this is right" is far too simple for the subject material, especially when we have people arguing the meaning of individual words and passages, interpreting what was written many thousands of years ago and has lost part of its meaning in translation, and also changes in our language. We also have people arguing on the meaning of science, claiming accepted scientific theories are wrong, or just interpreting things differently, e.g. João Magueijo has suggested that the speed of light may have been a lot greater in the early universe. As I mentioned above, scientists don't use the dictionary definitions of hypothesis, theory and fact, and the difference between scientific theory and scientific fact is not as big as many people think. There are already articles on wikipedia detailing science and religion e.g. Science and the Bible that might be of interest to you.Martin451 (talk) 14:36, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. We already have an article on the relationship between religion and science, which is the proper place for a thoughtful, NPOV discussion of the topic. Picking out and criticising individual passages just isn't the job of an encyclopedia. DoctorKubla (talk) 06:56, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One is enought I Guess Ginosti (talk) 10:30, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete An article about the scientific knowledge of the inhabitants of the bronze age Levant, or on the Roman Catholic Church's views on science, etc, would be valid, but we already have similar articles. But this article is (a) badly titled, as most of the bible is "unscientific" because it's not a science book; (b) full of content based on misinterpretation or mistranslation - e.g. the word he claims means "corner" actually means "extremity"; (c) possibly original research; (d) biased, point-scoring, trivial, and unencyclopedic. (a) and (b) are not in themselves grounds for deletion but they don't help, and (c) and (d) are. Plus, as I said, it badly duplicates existing good content on the relation between science and religion. (Incidentally I don't think we would need to add instances where the bible does correspond to science, because Wikipedia already has plenty of "criticism of" articles, and NPOV can be handled in different ways.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:53, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This article inherently involves too much interpreting beyond what the sources say. WP:SYNTHESIS will surely be prevalent here. Looking at the contents of the section on the shape of the earth - it already violates Wikipedia rules since the NASA site and the National Geodetic Survey does not even address the Bible at all and is already doing synthesis which constitutes original research WP:OR. Not only that, but since well educated theologians and scientists themselves have diverse interpretations of many of the ideas, this article will not provide any valuable insights and will provide too much debating and disagreements between interpretations of the scriptural texts and interpretations of what they really mean. Also this article would likely lead to people contributing more original research due to the article title itself. Furthermore, since this article would not represent the majorities of interpretations among experts who actually study these scriptures and verses, or science, this article would fall under WP:FRINGE. --Ramos1990 (talk) 21:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. Only primary sources are given for the scriptures, and it is far from clear any that scientific claims (as opposed to metaphors) are being made in the passages quoted. Also this list fails WP:LISTN. -- 101.119.15.118 (talk) 08:15, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- The creator has collected three random facts and is using them to attack scriptures. Whether the sun goes around the earth or vice versa is a matter of your standpoint. One should not expect the authors of works written 3000 years ago to be aware of Galileo's conclusion about 500 years ago that the other planets are going around the sun and thus the simpler model is to say that the earth is going around the sun. Biblical statements about the four corners of the earth need not be taken literally: if one regards the "earth" as referring to land (as opposed to sea), it could be literal. Furthermore, there are Biblical statements referring to the world being round. Some of the complints may be about the choice of an inappropriate word to translate one in the original, ignoring distinctions that have eben devised since some of the early transalations were made. The author is suffering from a bout of over-literalism. The prophetic books are frequently poetic and using metaphors, which are not to be taken literally. The authors wrote according to their understanding, as inspired by God: that does not mean that they were God's writing as if by God dictating text to them. I would challenge the creator to tell me how many things are actually wrong in the creation story in Genesis 1, ignorating the punctuation of the story by "the evening and the morning were the nth day": possibly birds appear too early, but that is about all. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:37, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this violation of WP:NPOV because WP is neither pro nor anti anything, while this "article" is nothing but a screed from an anti-theological POV. This is also a violation of WP:NOTSOAPBOX as well as WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND as it it an open invitation for endless and pointless WP:EDITWARRING. WP:SALTING is recommended. IZAK (talk) 03:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There is probably scope for at least one good article about the relationship between scripture and science, and there are many fine scholarly works which could be used as sources. There's more than enough material in the RSs about the archaeological evidence for and against the Hebrew Bible to write a slew of articles on that alone.
  ON the other hand, even the title tells us that this page is a POV-pushing exercise. It's content is a pile of synthesis, and it relies on crass WP:OR interpretations of primary sources. It's says something sad about the state of WP processes that this sort of thing even requires a discussion before being shredded and burnt. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:01, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. - Has now been updated alot & passes GNG & is notable -
Davey2010Talk 01:30, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Transeuropa (Festival)

Transeuropa (Festival) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails GNG, Apart from blogs/event advertisements, There's nothing to say this event is notable?... -
→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 15:28, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 27 September 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 Deleted by Alexf. (Non admin closure - Davey2010Talk 21:48, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Global Screen

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Global Screen (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Global Screen|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

TucsonDavidU.S.A. 15:28, 26 September 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. WP:TNT Mark Arsten (talk) 03:01, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nathuran Ahirwar Bhamoura

Nathuran Ahirwar Bhamoura (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

copy/paste of whatever the sole reference is Crusoe8181 (talk) 11:57, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The current version of the article is copyvio, but the subject passes WP:POLITICIAN as a member of parliament. Confirmed at the Parliament of India website. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It is possible that the source is public domain as a report of the Indian government, which would make this not a violation. I'll see if I can find someone who can answer that definitively. DPRoberts534 (talk) 01:00, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Govt of India works are copyrighted and not PD, so unless a rewrite occurs this should be deleted G12. —SpacemanSpiff 18:43, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    @SpacemanSpiff: Template:PD-India seems to suggest that some government works are not copyrighted. The copyright law of 1957 says that government reports are "not an infringement", but I don't think that means they are public domain. I'm not sure how that fits in with WP policy. DPRoberts534 (talk) 20:05, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • This isn't a report, reports are specifically classified by law to include budgets and revenue reports, plans and allocations and specific review reports for Plan projects. —SpacemanSpiff 20:11, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Thanks for the info! DPRoberts534 (talk) 03:57, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Certainly needs a rewrite, but the subject is notable per WP:POLITICIAN. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:07, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as copyvio per SpacemanSpiff. Notable subject, but the only content of value in the article is the ref to the Parliament website. DPRoberts534 (talk) 03:57, 30 September 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. If anyone feels strongly about any of these being deleted, please re-nominate individually instead of bundling. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:42, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudo-Abdias

Pseudo-Abdias (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Pseudo-Ambrose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Pseudo-Crato (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Pseudo-Dorotheus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Pseudo-Epiphanios (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Pseudo-Gregory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Pseudo-Jerome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Pseudo-John (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Pseudo-Linus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Pseudo-Luke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Pseudo-Marcellus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Pseudo-Mark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Pseudo-Melitus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Pseudo-Simon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Pseudo-Sophronius (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Paul Bedson, now banned, created several stubs in Category:Gnostic apocrypha and Category:New Testament apocrypha for texts with names that begin with "Pseudo-". Despite his contention that these somehow constitute "Pseudo-Gnostic Apocrypha" (see also template deletion discussion), it appears that while these are real texts, his categorisation of them is totally wrong - many or all of them are not Gnostic, they are not in any meaningful sense NT apocrypha, etc. I've fixed up Pseudo-Augustine (it's still a very brief stub, but at least is factually accurate now I believe.) The question with the remainder, is whether to fix them up to be accurate stubs about largely obscure texts, or just delete them. Given their obscurity, they may be destined to remain stubs for a long time if not forever. Their content cannot be trusted (their original author has a reputation for unreliability), and no one has come forward willing to expend the effort to check and correct them: therefore, I suggest they be deleted for now, and if anyone reliable ever takes an interest in any of them, they can recreate them. SJK (talk) 10:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, but support if no change in 14 days - I understand the reason for AfD. Difficult, the reality is that without the axe of AfD hanging over these stubs the tiny handful of WikiProject Christianity editors have got better things to do and as User:SJK correctly says they'll sit around as unreliable chunks of WP:OR for ever. However it only takes about 5-10 minutes to prune each stub with (a) adding a real source based lead, (b) deleting extra blurb, plus the nonsense Gnostic template and cats. I just did Pseudo-Marcellus. I'll probably do 2 or 3 more and post here which ones. But I don't intend to do all of them, and if editors can't be bothered then hey yes, nuke the others back into redlinks. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:11, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Boy, these are pretty bad. I just did Pseudo-Marcellus, Pseudo-Mark, Pseudo-Melitus, Pseudo-Simon (amazing - consisted of three quotes of 3 different Pseudo-Simons, hatnoted to the Greek Orthodox chronicler Symeon the Metaphrast, left as stub torso the middle Kabbalah Simon and converted to a Judaism / Kabbalah Project stub, deleted the musical manuscript, which wasn't a Pseudo Simon. :( I also trimmed the gnostic template and cats out of the first one on the AfD, and fixed lead. The body still needs an OR tag. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:47, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did Pseudo-Sophronius and turned Pseudo-Luke into a redirect to Leucius Charinus. That's the bottom 6 on the list done. Anyone want to do the top of the list? In ictu oculi (talk) 13:10, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose deletion of Pseudo-Abdias, Pseudo-Ambrose, Pseudo-John, and Pseudo-Linus, which seem to more clearly relate to documents than the alleged authors, particularly the first, which might be renamed Ambrosiaster after the title of the entry in the Augustine encyclopedia used as a reference.
• Neutral regarding the rest. About them, honestly, if there are only individual documents attributed to these authors, articles on those documents, which presumably have titles?, would probably make more sense. John Carter (talk) 15:20, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

@John Carter: I've been through all of them now, removing the "Gnosticism" templates and tags, reducing the lead to what is actually in sources. They're all notable. Document=author so classifying them is a secondary issue. <Pseudo-Crato remains a problem, one 1870 source goes into a lot of detail, but a bit of looking would dig out the modern name for the text and possibly a duplicate article. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:37, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, done that too. Could be merged to Pseudo Abdias but for the moment leave. Keep Keep Keep In ictu oculi (talk) 14:14, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or redirect -- I am not an expert and have only checked a sample. These all appear to be New Testament apocrypha items. As such, they should all be notable. If we already have an article on the book (or text), we should redirect to that. Pseudo-Luke would be a redirect, except that the AFD tag disables that. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:18, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Every one of these documents is of great historical significance, and therefore needs an article. There are abundant sources in the printed literature. Since the biographies of the supposed authors are a matter of conjecture, the articles should focus on the documents. DGG ( talk ) 22:25, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I did recently find a Brill Encyclopedia of Gnosticism and Western Esotericism, and will try to develop some sort of content list on the basis of it in the next few weeks, which should be useful in indicating notability and sources for gnostic works. John Carter (talk) 22:30, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:05, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Data vs Information

Data vs Information (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Heading for either an essay or a dictionary definition TheLongTone (talk) 10:25, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Redundant with Data#Meaning of data, information and knowledge, and putting such information in the article data or information makes more sense than having a short standalone article. Could redirect, but not sure it's necessary. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:44, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Delete. Already covered better at Data#Meaning of data, information and knowledge, and nothing seems to be worth merging. -- 101.119.14.26 (talk) 15:23, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 18:40, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Breeze Barton

Breeze Barton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidence of notability, only sourced to primary sources, wikis and an unreliable website. ProD removed without good reason and without improvements. No good sources seem to exist either, only listings in comics databases. Fram (talk) 09:42, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep For the love of God... Joefromrandb (talk) 09:47, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Religion is not a reason to keep or delete articles. Any policy or guideline-nased reasons? Fram (talk) 10:08, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It would be useful to know exactly how many comics this superhero has appeared in. Does anyone know? Benboy00 (talk) 09:52, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article just seems imperfect and the worst case would be merger into another page such as Daring Mystery Comics per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. Warden (talk) 09:53, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • How will you check whether the information you suggest to merge is in any way or shape reliable and correct? There are no reliable sources. Fram (talk) 10:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • There seem to be adequate reliable sources for the essential facts, which do not seem to be in dispute. Warden (talk) 08:53, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • The author? The special powers of Barton? Whether he lived in Earth-4040 or not? Fram (talk) 09:05, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • You can read about it in the Daring Mystery comic book itself. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • The valuable 1940 American comic book that the Singaporean library let you borrow? Right... And these early comics are usually anonymous anyway, so where did you get the author from? According to Comicvine (not reliable, but used in the article anyway, "Breeze Barton was created by an unknown artist and writer"... Other sources give E.C. Stoner as the creator of Barton. Fram (talk) 09:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • There's some detailed coverage at The Comic Detective which says that E.C. Stoner did the inking for Jack Binder's pencils. We're talking about the Golden Age here, which is the early days of the comics and pre-Internet. Researching this stuff may well involve visits to libraries or special collections. Warden (talk) 13:47, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • "Detailed coverage" being one sentence in a blog? I'm quite aware that we are talking pre-internet and early days, I've written articles on pre-WWII comic strips here. I had no problem finding some significant coverage from reliable sources for the notable ones though. 13:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
                • The detail clarifies E. C. Stoner's role in the topic, which was the point you were querying. It is interesting to note that he was a negro and is celebrated as the first such to work in comics. As this artist seems quite important in breaking down a racial barrier, I have started an article about him too. I trust that no-one will hold this against Bonkers. Warden (talk) 17:32, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep For the love of the Flying Spaghetti Monster... ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:48, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see above response. Benboy00 (talk) 15:07, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Daring Mystery Comics. A book search brings up several good hits - HCA Comics Dallas Auction Catalog #824, Standard Guide to Golden Age Comics, Comics Values Annual 2008, however all are mere passing mentions without any indication of independent notability outside the comic. Advice to those voting "Keep" - put links to sources in your argument. It's not 100% guaranteed to work but it makes people sit up and listen. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Upon close examination, I'm inclined to say that International Hero is reliable when it comes to comic books. The sourcing of information described on the website itself seems pretty detailed. IronGargoyle (talk) 12:44, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On closer examination, I find the website is almost the textbook definition of a self-published source, whose mission is to print every comic superhero character ever without discrimination or concern over their notability to the world at large. You might argue about it being reliable coverage, but it's not independent or significant coverage, and you need all three to count towards notability. And even if it was, you'd need more sources anyway. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:27, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Merge with DMC. Mainly sourced to a primary source that I doubt the editor has ever seen. Gamaliel (talk) 16:22, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen the primary source. There's this magical place called the public library, where you can find comics of all kinds, you know? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 08:36, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a librarian, I am aware of the public library. I am also aware that the public library generally does not allow you to borrow comic books worth thousands of dollars, as you claimed here. Gamaliel (talk) 14:56, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What I borrowed was this book. In it, you can find the issue on Breeze Barton. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 04:09, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should have cited that book in the article and mentioned that book when that citation was brought up in the DYK discussion. Gamaliel (talk) 17:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Insofar the only non-primary source is a self-published fansite. Someone not using his real name (talk) 20:12, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as the subject does turn up on a google book search including the comic he debuted in being valued at $12,000. He's a subject with a fictional biography which is best treated in a daughter article separate from the parent one due to subject matter. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:03, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No one said he wasn't verifiable. But the source you added literally just mentions him as part of that comic and says nothing about Breeze Barton, adding no notability for the subject at all. The value of the comic book is not dependent on Breeze Barton. Where is the notability from reliable sources? Fram (talk) 08:18, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What Fram said. The source you reported, and indeed the search, is the exact same one I mentioned earlier. But the coverage amounts to just one line with the comic and its value. That's it. Now, if there was a paragraph, or a separate breakout section talking about why being valued 12K was significant and important, then we'd be onto something. But there isn't. As for being "best treated in a daugher article" - maybe you'd have a point if Daring Mystery Comics was 50K in size, and doing a content fork was a valid option. But it isn't, and it isn't. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:19, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

True, but the source is little more than point form anyway, so is not going to have reams of info, in this case just listing 3-4 key entities that first appear in the issue. Given what I know of hunting for other obscure topics, they don't often turn up with simple google or google book searches. I suspect, given the magazine is a key precursor of a highly notable comic line, that more has been written somewhere that would take some time or borrowing/purchasing of material books to uncover. I don't have the time or inclination to do that but am making a best guess on what I see before me. Hence my ideal is to keep as I have described. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:26, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sure, that's pretty much the same conclusion I came to, I just went with "Redirect" instead of "Keep". A redirect doesn't nuke the earlier content, so as and when more sources turn up, it can be turned back into a full article at that point. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:31, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

True that. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Ok for me. Ginosti (talk) 10:33, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unremarkable character, lack of sourcing, the usual for this kind of stuff. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 10:58, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to DMC as above. Non-notable character individually, sourcing is weak ES&L 14:14, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'd suppose the nominator would also like to nominate all the characters listed here. (See template below) They all share the same "problems" this one has. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 04:11, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:GoldenAge

• • Do you really think that ridiculous hyperbole will help your case here? Do you truly believe that the notability of Breeze Barton is comparable to that of, e.g. Wonder Woman, Batman or Captain America, to name just these three? No, they definitely don't share the same problems. If you truly believe that they do, then you have a serious WP:COMPETENCE problem. Otherwise, you are just trolling. Not a smart thing to do in your situation... Fram (talk) 17:15, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • Let's not poke Bonkers. However, while I do agree that a bit of those articles have problems, it's really just a case of other crap existing. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 21:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect to an appropriate article. The topic has nothing to establish actual notability, so an article is unnecessary until that becomes possible. TTN (talk) 15:00, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unnecessary? An article on Winston Churchill isn't "necessary" either. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:26, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: B. BOZ (talk) 16:41, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: B. Having trouble seeing the specific notability of the character (as opposed perhaps, to publications that they've appeared in), but that it was the "List of Marvel Comics characters" articles are for! Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:53, 5 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:07, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good old days

Good old days (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This phrase has never been the topic of any individual study. The citations given refer only to uses of that phrase and not to any WP:Reliable sources or to Wikipedia:Third-party sources that talk about the phrase. This article reeks of WP:Original research. GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:32, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It is easy to find studies of the topic. Here's an example. The article is tagged for improvement today but please don't bring it here because AFD is not cleanup. Warden (talk) 08:10, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Something is notable here. Either the phrase or the feeling behind it. The essay Colonel Warden provided discusses both. Another choice would be to merge with nostalgia. Kitfoxxe (talk) 21:56, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Some amusing reading in the 2004 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olden days. –Quiddity (talk) 06:01, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Nostalgia. –Quiddity (talk) 06:01, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• keep I agree with Colonel Warden Ginosti (talk) 11:00, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge I agree that there is something notable about this. Though we may not have many citations for it yet, I feel they likely do exist. I would either keep it, or merge and redirect it to Nostalgia. I lean towards keeping it though. Zell Faze (talk) 22:15, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As the one who nominated this for tafi, I see dorm inherent notability on this article. I agree with Warden and also want to offer this RationalWiki article as an example of where this article could go. There are a wealth of sources on the Internet and I think the best thing to do would be to go out and nab em rather then having this theoretical discussion. :)--Coin945 (talk) 03:24, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Less than a day and a half after it was tagged for improvement, it gets nominated for deletion. It is more than just a simple definition, and more could be added to the article surely. The massive number of results from Google news and Google books make it hard to find anything specific. But the expression does certainly clearly get used a lot. It is definitely cliché [20] Dream Focus 19:17, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand. bd2412 T 20:02, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:08, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anchery Kudumbam

Anchery Kudumbam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The notability is unclear, and the article includes no references. eh bien mon prince (talk) 07:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Family memorial and genealogy page. The cited sources at the end of the article (separate section) are passing mentions of a few individuals in history which is not surprising for any family. No claim of notability other than the family exists. --Green Cardamom (talk) 20:06, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Wikipedia isn't for publishing you genealogy research. Note that the artcile is essentially a copy of the web page in the external link section. Technically a copyvio, but I suspect that the author of both the web page and article are one and the same. -- Whpq (talk) 21:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep (Nomination withdrawn). StAnselm (talk) 06:44, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

White House hospitality toward African Americans

White House hospitality toward African Americans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article takes two slightly-related incidents and tries to connect them. But the concept is far too broad, and is of dubious significance. How many times have the Obamas shown hospitality to African Americans? StAnselm (talk) 06:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I wrote Jessie DePriest tea at the White House and Booker T. Washington dinner at the White House a couple of days ago. I'm merging them because, having read all those sources I see there is a coherent subject here. I don't intend to cover, in this article, all black visitors to the White House, of course. But I shall be covering most such visits from the dinner with the Haitian ambassador and his black wife in 1798 (and the uproar that caused) to Sammy Davis Jr's sleepover during Nixon's tenure. I'm writing this history and I'd appreciate it if StAnselm would extend a little trust that someone who's read all the sources knows what he's doing here. I'm going offline for a while now. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:15, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, the existence of this article has nothing to do with the proposed merge. I am happy to withdraw in light of your proposed direction. StAnselm (talk) 06:43, 26 September 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. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 14:33, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

EliteXC: Primetime

EliteXC: Primetime (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

All information that made this article notable was not sourced. Holdek (talk) 05:46, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator, will merge with Elite Xtreme Combat. Holdek (talk) 05:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. --BDD (talk) 15:20, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Annie Thorisdottir

Annie Thorisdottir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Looks like may fail WP:GNG, all [English] added "English" sources seem directly linked with the CrossFit gym program (which says it isn't a franchise, but isn't a recognisable sport either). I initially thought the source at ESPN was an advertorial not a real article. because the photo is "Courtesy of M&C Saatchi", but the byline says its by a real ESPN writer. Does that make it an independent source? In ictu oculi (talk) 05:27, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I found this source as well from ESPN. Not sure if this helps, so I'll let the wiki gods work this in.Tuuky 22:29, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
• Delete Lacks significant coverage in independent sources. --BDD (talk) 22:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 22:06, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 22:06, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 22:06, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 22:06, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Seems to get reasonably sustained coverage in national Icelandic media. I came to her article while making Icelandic Sportsperson of the Year and saw there's a ripple of consternation because Annie's not been included in the voting yet (the ÍSÍ aren't convinced CrossFit is a bona fide sport yet either). By all accounts she's the highest earning athlete in Iceland because each of these "events" she wins is worth $250,000. See for example [21], [22], [23], [24] Clavdia chauchat (talk) 01:04, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (withdraw AfD) - okay well can't argue with that. I did search Icelandic sources but used the whole surname string when of course in Icelandic press the surname usually isn't used and she is Anníe Mist. Evidently passes WP:GNG. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:21, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:00, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bikes May Use Full Lane

Bikes May Use Full Lane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Contested PROD. Non-notable road sign, can be discussed in a list of regulatory signs. Dough4872 02:32, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Then why are you nominating it for deletion instead of proposing a merge? I propose holding off on this discussion for a few days. The article was posted just today, by a respected editor who indicated in his first edit that he would expand it shortly. bd2412 T 02:39, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
• Conditional Merge - if article hasnt been expanded to a reasonable level within the duration of this AfD (1wk), it should be merged into a more general article - it by no means needs to be comprehensive by that point though. Creating editor has stated an intention to improve the article, we should allow some time for this to happen, the article is also very new. -- Nbound (talk) 02:45, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Individual road signs generally do not merit a full article, especially one like this one, that just consists of a standard pictogram with text. (An exception would be something like U.S. Route shield where we have official documentation of the design process and a history of revisions to the design.) —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:31, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Lane control by cyclists is a notable topic - see Is it a cyclist's right to 'take the lane'?, for example. Relevant signage forms a natural part of the topic and so we should preserve this per our editing policy. Warden (talk) 08:21, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Vehicular cycling#Lane control and include the image as an illustration there. Lane control is notable. The sign, in and of itself, is not. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• My opinion about the proper treatment of this article is not changed by the expanded version (this revision, for reference). There are six references cited. The California MUTCD 2012 Edition is California's implementation of the standard that defines the sign; this is a primary source that is not by any means independent coverage. The San Diego Union-Tribune article is about the broader concept of lane control, and mentions the sign itself only by means of illustration; it does not discuss the sign specifically at any length. ThinkBicycling is a WordPress blog and is not a reliable source. Also not a reliable source is the website of a local cycling club. That leaves us with the CATSIP study and the Greater Greater Washington page. I am inclined to believe that the former should not be considered independent coverage, and the latter (which actually does discuss the sign at length, including a variant version used in some places due to bureaucratic issues) has a contributions policy that makes me question whether it can be considered a reliable source. The expansion here is laudable, and I'm typically an advocate for a fairly inclusive stance, but I still believe this is better covered in the context of the wider concept. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can find more secondary news sources, I'm sure, if that's the issue. The sign is very important because of its growing effect in raising awareness of lane control - which prior to the sign was practically unknown. This effect is reflected mostly in local news source coverage when the sign is first introduced to an area. --B2C 18:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also want to point out that WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Many of the cited sources are lightweight, but the statements being supported, about the existence of these signs at various locations, are about as lightweight as source material can be. So these lightweight sources are appropriate in this context. While any one of the sources in isolation does not establish a notable topic, it seems to me that the number and broad distribution of the sources referencing the installation of these signs demonstrates sufficient interest for notability. --B2C 17:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As creator. Sorry it's still a stub. I realize now I should have developed it in my user space before putting it in article space. Placement of the relatively new sign has generated discussion and coverage by reliable news sources all over the country. It challenges the understanding most people have about bicycle traffic rights and safety, and it's changing that understanding. People are encountering the sign and are wondering what it means. It stands to reason that they will look to WP for an explanation. It needs development to be sure, but the topic itself is clearly notable.

About 26,900 results (0.26 seconds) "bikes+may+use+full+lane"&oq="bikes+may+use+full+lane"

Any help on expanding the article would be greatly appreciated, of course. --B2C 17:11, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Colonel Warden. The topic of lane control is notable, however this is an article on a sign. The sign itself is not notable. Move the graphic per Squeamish Ossifrage but delete the article. Imzadi 1979 → 21:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What are the grounds for the claim that this particular sign is not notable? The article now cites a study that was done to look at the effectiveness of the sign. More citations are coming but there is already enough in the article, much less outside of it, to demonstrate the notability of the sign itself.

In related news we also have Shared lane marking and Stop sign. --B2C 00:58, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As I'm improving the article I noticed usage in the references suggests the name more commonly used for this topic is Bicycles (not Bikes) May Use Full Lane, so I've moved the article accordingly, to Bicycles May Use Full Lane. --B2C 21:27, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. While an article on a sign initially would seem overly specific a topic, probably worthy information but not a stand alone article, one reading the references, it becomes apparent that this is not a mere ordinary old sign. Of the current references, the 2nd and 4th are independent secondary sources, making direct, non-trivial comment/analysis on this specific sign itself. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:08, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw - The article has been expanded to the point where it has proven the notability of the sign. I realized that I jumped the gun too quickly in nominating this article for deletion. Dough4872 18:45, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. And I'll get articles past the stub stage in my user space before I put them in article space. --B2C 00:26, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Close? Given the nom's withdrawal - can this Afd be speedy closed now? --B2C 00:26, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - There are good faith delete !votes so this shouldn't be speedily closed per WP:WITHDRAWN. -- Whpq (talk) 21:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Dyosa characters. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Diana (Dyosa)

Diana (Dyosa) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This character does not establish notability independent of Dyosa through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 19:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into List of Dyosa characters, which needs to be created. It looks like someone was intending on creating this page but never got around to it. We can move each of the Dyosa characters who currently exist into this list. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:06, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• merge Not really appropriate for a separate article, but there's no reason not to make the necessary article and merge. There is certainly no reason not to at least redirect. The nomination gives no reason given why there should not be at least a redirect. There's a good explanation for that: there is no possibly valid reason. Anything someone might want to look up, for which there's relevant content in Wikipedia, should have a redirect.If there's no reason against redirection, we shouldn't be asking for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 05:59, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 19 September 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) 02:21, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge if it hasn't already been done to the parent article, as there isn't a full character list to point to at the moment. Not notable outside of the series. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:29, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into List of Dyosa characters per NinjaRobotPirate, fails WP:GNG.Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:05, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:09, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Astronaut Status

Astronaut Status (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable mixtape, per WP:MUSIC. Disputed redirect. SummerPhD (talk) 21:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I've added some sources to the article, including reviews by Pitchfork and XXL. There appears to be just enough coverage to meet WP:GNG and WP:NALBUMS.  Gong show 18:36, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep significant coverage in multiple RSs. 78.19.91.239 (talk) 00:09, 22 September 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) 02:20, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per reasons stated above. Sepulwiki (talk) 11:20, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - After the sources and critical reception was added, it looks clear to meet WP:NALBUMS, also has charted, which is rare for a mixtape. STATic message me! 19:07, 27 September 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. JohnCD (talk) 15:16, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interactive application security testing

Interactive application security testing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:OR essay or blog piece. Interesting, informative, but not for Wikipedia. Fiddle Faddle 08:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 19 September 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) 02:14, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and agree, Wikipedia articles on related subjects could use some work. It was created by a single-purpose account that also tried to create an article on a company mentioned in this one: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Quotium Technologies, which would not disqualify it per se. But this one has just too many issues with style being all out of place. Too many capital letters, no lead, raw urls for citations, dated language (" today’s date", "At this point of time", "at present" etc.) reads clearly like a marketing research report (e.g. solutions) not encyclopedia language. W Nowicki (talk) 22:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I agree the article has problem (I've added an {{essay-like}} tag) but we don't delete flawed articles, we improve them. The AfD question here is about notability and no one has addressed that question yet. ~KvnG 15:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, to be explicit, this topic is not notable. Two citations are to a promotional page for a talk by Quotium, who appears to be the ones coining this neologism. Two are for a marketing report that is not available without purchase. One is short blog posting. One is a promotional brochure from Singapore (?) that quotes the same marketing report. Every new acronym invented by a marketer does not automatically get an article. W Nowicki (talk) 20:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete If this topic is truly notable, the article would have to be completely rewritten anyway to get rid of the OR and soapboxing. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:19, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. after the work by two good editors, there is no longer reason to delete. DGG ( talk ) 04:54, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Onse, San Juan, Metro Manila

Onse, San Juan, Metro Manila (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The contents of this article are questionable. The primary author of the article has introduced misleading images on multiple occasions which were removed by other editors. Examples of the removal of images can be seen here: diff 1, diff 2, diff 3, diff 4. The only image on this page which is a flag is questionable and looks like it could have simply been made in paint. This whole article has been unsourced and for quite some time. The history section is also questionable. I find it hard to believe that after more than two centuries of Spanish rule, that this area was discovered considering that Manila, a major city is geographically very close. Elockid ^(Talk) 20:15, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Adding on to my delete rationale. I also have doubts on the validity of the historical population figures. While it states that the data is from the National Statistics Office, the NSO to my knowledge only publishes city data every censuses. None of the dates listed are from censuses. The Philippines has a census every 5 years (with the exception of 2007) with the last one in 2010. Elockid ^(Talk) 15:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: be the content what it may, Onse barangay in the city of San Juan in the Philippines is a verifiable inhabited locality: see, for example, Google Maps. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 03:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:39, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I seen it very unconstructive. It has to be a significance between the areas of San Juan, Metro Manila and this area. It doesn't seem that this area is recognizable here in the Philippines. Such barrangay's/towns do not need much appropriate existency. So I'm agree to Delete it. Hamham31Heke!KushKush! 03:53, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Though the barangay does exist and is easily notable given its population size and especially as a village of this megacity called Metro Manila, i'd say its history narrative is indeed phony as well as its demographics part. Either rewrite or delete completely. --RioHondo (talk) 18:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Here, incidentally, is Onse's page at the official website of the City of San Juan. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 19:16, 10 September 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,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:20, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and fix per discussion above. Stubbify to the basics and use reliable sourcing. Candleabracadabra (talk) 13:28, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - with a few clicks, I found several sources. Bearian (talk) 19:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have copyedited it, removed nonsense, fixed the formatting issue, and found a couple of citations. Bearian (talk) 20:52, 24 September 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) 02:12, 26 September 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) 03:12, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Graham

Jordan Graham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Completing an AfD nomination for IP 4.71.191.75, rationale was "he is a professional but hs not played a professional game and is therefore *currently* un-notable". No personal opinion, just completing the nom. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 02:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL, has not played at pro level, only for U21s. Mountaincirque (talk) 01:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 09:21, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG & WP:NFOOTBALL. Finnegas (talk) 15:19, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per above, standard non-notable football. Fenix down (talk) 08:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete until he is a regular member of the first team. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:22, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:35, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Lee (British musician)

Graham Lee (British musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article's subject does not appear to meet notability guidelines for musicians. The article's single reference is to a quote by the article's subject, which does not establish his notability. Search for additional reliable non-trivial sources turns up nothing else to support such a claim. KDS4444^Talk 17:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:47, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I did find a concert review with a paragraph discussing a piece featuring the subject ("The Independent" 1995 (via Questia, subscription reqd). But that and the passing mention referenced into the article are too little for biographical notability. AllyD (talk) 06:20, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect somewhere. Given The Independent and Guardian articles, I don't think its worth for this musician to have its own article, but rather merge him into another article having to do with him. 和DITOREtails 22:25, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- We have masses of articles on bands of whom I have never heard. I do not see why we should not keep articles on orchestral musicians. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:56, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The solution would be to cull the irrelevant bands, not to water down wikipedia.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 14:03, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consens seems clear. Similar outcomes vary, but i think most of those with only this degree of coverage now get deleted. My own personal opinion might be different in some cases. DGG ( talk ) 22:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Whitney Heichel

Murder of Whitney Heichel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Tragic but not notable murder....William 20:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions....William 20:06, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions....William 20:06, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Wikipedia is not a crime blotter or collection of stories of true crime-and-punishment. My condolences to the friends and family of the victim. Carrite (talk) 23:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per international coverage. I say give the article creator a chance to improve the article further and add more info and even more reliable refs then right now. Good work so far.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. What international news? The article's sources are not international and oh yes it was in the Daily Mail. The Daily Mail is a tabloid newspaper and WP:SENSATION reads "Tabloid or yellow journalism is usually considered a poor basis for an encyclopedia article, due to the lack of fact checking inherent in sensationalist and scandal mongering news reporting." Another source for the article is the New York Daily News whose editor freely says 'we are a tabloid newspaper[25]....William 00:34, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Although the Daily Mail is a tabloid newspaper in format (as opposed to broadsheet), it is not a 'tabloid' newspaper in the way that WP:SENSATION means. So it does count as a reliable source.Videomaniac29 (talk) 05:21, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Perhaps the article should be renamed to be about the killer who was also involved in child porn? Candleabracadabra (talk) 13:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS as all coverage is routine and no evidence of lasting impact. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 19:42, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per past similar outcomes. Ongoing, international and national coverage. Bearian (talk) 18:42, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment What ongoing coverage? Google news shows nothing for 30 days. Coverage of this story is routine except and the rest of the coverage is the tabloid media. Young lady gets abducted and murdered. Happens everyday is tragic but tell me one think notable about this one?...William 23:35, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:46, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP does not 'do' murders unless there is something about them to render them encyclopaedic. With good reasons - there are a great many of them.^[1] Some do receive media coverage, usually because they are female, white and young. The nature of current media is that the stories may be hosted anywhere in the world - the Mail Online boasts a big international reach and concentrates especially on targeting a female audience, for whom stories such as this may have a special and morbid fascination. There still needs to be a good reason for including them in Wikipedia, as there is in some cases, but I am not seeing evidence of it here. --AJHingston (talk) 11:35, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Expanding upon my comment at the top, this piece runs afoul of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. The incident, while tragic, is not of lasting historical or cultural significance. Coverage is of the nature of routine news for crime-and-punishment. Carrite (talk) 16:33, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per AJHingston's and WilliamJE's resonings. MrScorch6200 (talk) 16:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and AJHingston. This is tragic and regrettable but has no long-term or encyclopedic significance. JohnCD (talk) 15:27, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:14, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Monster Rancher EVO Monsters

List of Monster Rancher EVO Monsters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Trivia list. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 01:09, 26 September 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) 00:13, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as WP:GAMECRUFT/WP:TRIVIA. The subject has not received reliable coverage independent of the parent game. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:PLOT, WP:GNG, and WP:GAMECRUFT/WP:TRIVIA. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:59, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Non-notable WP:GAMECRUFT. Anything noteworthy can be added to its respective article in prose. Sergecross73 msg me 15:28, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:22, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Illegal taxicab operation

Illegal taxicab operation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Mostly (but not 100%) Original Research. It is a non-encyclopedic topic anyway. Herzlicheboy (talk) 00:10, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I'm not seeing a reason to delete in the nomination. Being mostly bad is not a reason per WP:IMPERFECT. And "non-encyclopedic" is begging the question. Warden (talk) 08:53, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep "Gypsy cabs", illegal/unlicensed taxicabs and minicabs are a common topic of news reports and features.[26][27][28][29][30][31] I think "unlicensed" is a better description than "illegal" but that's a separate issue. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the reliable sources shown by Colapeninsula. Gscholar also shows about 200 hits for "unlicensed taxi", with some papers devoted to the topic. While the article needs cleanup of some essay-like prose, this is a surmountable problem, per WP:SURMOUNTABLE. A notable topic and surmountable problems in the article suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 00:29, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per User:Colapeninsula - I see no reason to delete. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:11, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - illegal cabs, unlicensed taxi... They go under a variety of names, and does get coverage as noted above. -- Whpq (talk) 21:26, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]