Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 April 28

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 27 April	29 April >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was snow close. Given that the article for Amit manwar has been recreated several times after deletion, I'm salting this to prevent a similar situation. It can be re-created when/if more sources become available. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:56, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bad born

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

Possible hoax, Google search for sources, directors turned up no hits. If this film was actually distributed by Marvel it should have had widespread coverage, but none was found. Nominating at AfD because article author objected to PROD. Altamel (talk) 23:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax-Marvel never made this. Unless if there is some other studio named Marvel. Wgolf (talk) 01:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:INDAFD: Bad Born Amit Manwar Saurabh Bhagat D. Belkhade Ashwin Yadav Saraubh Thakre S.D Bhagat

Note: I declined the speedy that was placed AFTER this deletion discussion had begun, as this is a foreign film and possible foreign sources will be determined at this AFD. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not even close to satisfying WP:MOVIE. According to (now A7-speedied, but still in Google cache) companion article, "director" Amit manwar was born in 2000... Hqb (talk) 15:18, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree after a lot of digging that at the very kindest this film topic article is TOO SOON. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 16:14, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of notability, fails the guidelines for inclusion set out at WP:GNG, WP:N etc. The article creator's talk page speaks volumes. — sparklism ^hey! 11:21, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hearts indigo from the same author. JohnCD (talk) 18:02, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:52, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gutter punk

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

The page does not adhere to a neutral Point of View. Efforts to remedy this have been blocked, and reliable sources of a neutral point of view cannot be found. Currently, "sourced" information was about runaways (not gutter punks), and the other article was an obviously biased article. Until such ethnographies of Gutter Punk culture have been formulated and collected by reliable sources from a neutral point of view, including the ideologies of those that practice Gutter Punk culture as a counter-cultural and sustainable lifestyle, the article should be deleted.Gstridsigne (talk) 23:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ For the reasons addressed above, and for the lack of useful and accurate information within the article itself. The biased point of view of the article is from an outsider perspective, and having worked with such individuals, the article is completely false and fails to address the ideology and point of view of individuals who participate in this lifestyle due to moral beliefs. Also, it is likely that this ethnography may never be collected due to the reluctance of Gutter Punks to participate in such data collection, preferring a more simple lifestyle and eschewing governmental and academic study.Gstridsigne (talk) 22:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Your nomination was your vote. I have struck out your second vote. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I do apologize. Thank you for the information and for adjusting my entry. Gstridsigne (talk) 01:31, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - AfD is not for cleanup. The two sources the nominator mentions are the two they removed: Chapman, Ben and Elizabeth Hays. (NY) Daily New, July 14, 2009. "Punks invade Williamsburg as heroin-addicted hobos set up shop in trendy Brooklyn neighborhood" is the "biased" one. The other is LeDuff, Charlie. The New York Times, September 21, 1997. "MAKING IT WORK; Runaway Girl" is "about runaways (not gutter punks)". I don't see bias in the first and second is about a runaway's "gutter punk life". Other sources available: DNAinfo Chicago "Traveling 'Gutter Punk' Homeless Back in City"; The Daily Californian "Ex-'Gutter Punk' Tells All"; Antigravity "Everyone Hates the Oogles: Exploring the animosity towards New Orleans’ panhandling punks"; New York magazine "Punk Like Them"; Journal of Psychoactive Drugs "Psychosocial Histories, Social Environment, and the HIV Risk Behaviors of Injection and Noninjection Drug Using Homeless Youths" (doi: 10.1080/02791072.1998.10399665); American Behavioral Scientist "Homelessness and the Politics of Social Exclusion" (doi: 10.1177/0002764204274192) and Substance Use & Misuse "Incidence and Predictors of Onset of Injection Drug Use in a San Francisco Cohort of Homeless Youth" (doi: 10.3109/10826080902865271). - SummerPhD (talk) 23:56, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I might not fully understand your argument. Are you trying to say that I nominated this article for deletion because the passage and sources that I had previously deleted and you reversed should be removed, as if I am arguing that the page should stay with those edits? Do you mind clarifying? Because if that is what you are saying, that is not the case. I am saying the entire article should be deleted, not just the information within it. In many ways, other articles such as Crusties, Anarcho-punk, and Anarcho-Primitivism more accurately reflect the nature of Gutter Punks, even if they are not necessarily the "same thing." All of these pages do have a more neutral point of view, and Gutter Punks are very similar ideologically and politically to these other counter cultural movements, if not a slight deviation from these movements. Additionally, Wikipedia:DEL-REASON's 6 since not much reliable information exists about the counter-cultural movement, and possibly 8 since it may not adhere to the General Notability Guideline's first criteria: "significant coverage." Lastly, even before my edits, there were a total of 10 sentences about the movement, hardly enough to warrant notability for an article. I also do not see the merit of expanding the article, given the lack of reliable and neutral articles on the subject.Gstridsigne (talk) 01:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have reviewed the articles and journal entries that you have proposed. The ones from The Daily Californian and Antigravity seem to come from a more neutral to punk-friendly perspective, and along with the more negative article could eliminate the perspective issues. However, even with these articles it still does not provide enough information to warrant an entire article. The three journal entries about addiction in homeless youth speak about addiction in general in punk culture, and not in Gutter punk culture specifically.Gstridsigne (talk) 01:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I fully understand that you feel the two sources are not acceptable and the article should be deleted. Yes, many of the sources say what are generally interpreted as negative things about gutter punks. This is not "bias". Yes, there are many attributes that are usually seen as negative that the sources say apply to gutter punks. The sources, however, arereliable so the information is verifiable. Our articles about various dictators, diseases, mass murderers, toxins, etc. are very heavily slanted toward undisputedly negative attributes. That's not "bias", that's reporting facts. From my own work, I am well aware that the homeless (which I am NOT saying are synonymous with gutter punks, though there's a lot of overlap) are disproportionately LGBT, unemployed, mentally ill, ATOD addicted, have criminal records, are members of racial and/or ethnic minorities, etc. Some of those are seen as negative, others as neutral. That's not "bias", that's reporting facts. IMO, independent reliable sources provide significant coverage to the subject. That the article is currently short, poorly sourced or otherwise deficient does not alter the fact that the subject is notable and we have sufficient coverage available. AfD is not for clean up. Editing is for clean up. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:N. In addition to the many sources posted above by User:SummerPhD, there's also:

Tearing Down the Streets: Adventures in Urban Anarchy. pp. 46-47.
My World: Ramblings of an Aging Gutter Punk. 191 pages.
"Are Gutter Punk Youth Satisfied with Homeless Services in Berkeley, California?" California State University. 128 pages.
"There's not a lot of love in the Haight". Los Angeles Times.
"Young Anger Is Gathering On The Streets -- Gutter Punks Reject Mainstream In U.S. As Inane, Hypocritical". The Seattle Times (originally published in Washington Post).

– NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:22, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:36, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thoriq Alkatiri

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

the link tells you nothing, other then he is a ref, but nothing about his career or anything (I did misread one part and thought it said a decent referee though) anyway I think this needs more info. Wgolf (talk) 21:59, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 11:55, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable ref. no indication of GNG, does not appear to have refereed any continental or international matches. Fenix down (talk) 12:12, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as unverified. If the content of the article is true and he is in fact a FIFA listed referee, the article meets WP:NSPORT, but at present that claim is not supported by reliable sources. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:31, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not enough coverage in reliable sources. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:59, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice against recreation if notability can be established and if it can be written in a neutral, non-spammy tone. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michigan Industrial Tools

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

The article's references (the article was an AfC which was "accepted" by its own creator) does not display notability. Plus that it written like advertisment. (t) Josve05a (c) 20:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence that this firm is notable. AllyD (talk) 07:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TEKTON

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

The references does not display the articles notabily. Plus that it looks like it is written a little bit like an ad. (t) Josve05a (c) 20:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence provided or found that this product line is notable. (Note that there are construction firms of similar names for which coverage can be found.) AllyD (talk) 07:01, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although the brand may not be in many articles, it is one of the top selling brands in Amazon.com's Hand Tools department.[See here] The brand is also sold on Sears.com and Lowes.com. And it is an oft-mentioned brand in Garage Journal, which is a popular blog among tool users and mechanics. [See here]. I can understand if you still have to delete it because there aren't scholarly articles on the brand, but I believe it is a product line that is notable. Mjdeboer52 (talk) 19:51, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not because it isn't notable, but because this is an ad. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:24, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:41, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sonny Milano

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

He is under consideration for the NHL, but not a pro yet-too early if ever. Wgolf (talk) 20:31, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 11:32, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NHOCKEY and GNG. May become notable but right now it's WP:TOOSOON. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:12, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 07:06, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Brander

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

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

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

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

Completely non-notable individual. No third party references describe this person in the level of detail required for a biography. Hipocrite (talk) 20:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep Brander is a rising star in the Jewish world and has achieved notoriety on many fronts. This article clearly needs some good work to make it up to snuff but nonetheless its important to have it. 74.102.231.14 (talk) 22:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep I would like to contest this deletion. This individual is notable both as a dean and university vice president [1] as well as a published scholar [2]. His biography is described in detail on the university website [3] in the level of detail required for a biography. Idtboy (talk) 19:50, 28 April 2014 (EST)

I don't believe being a mid-level dean at a mid-level institution is an indication of notability. I don't believe that unpublished drafts are published. The primary sourced "about" page has no biographical detail. Hipocrite (talk) 19:49, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Hi, Hip. Have you done a wp:before search? The RS coverage need not be in the article. It simply has to exist. For example, the 15-paragraph article "Brander named vice president at Yeshiva University" in the Sun-Sentinel is entirely about the rabbi. Epeefleche (talk) 01:34, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did, yes. I don't believe that puff-piece articles with no detail are substantial biographical works. Hipocrite (talk) 19:49, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Why do you refer to the 15-paragraph article as having "no detail?" On the contrary, it appears quite detailed, and appears to reflect precisely what a biography-supporting article would contain--in terms of biographical content. And Sun-Sentinel is clearly an RS. Epeefleche (talk) 22:20, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete~~Keep~~ ~~The reliable and verifiable sources in the article and available elsewhere meet the notability standard.~~ After further review and input, I agree with the argument that the article should be deleted. Alansohn (talk) 19:57, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this WP:N rabbi, there are so many WP:V and WP:RS about and by him on: "Kenneth Brander", books, scholar that prove this beyond any doubt. The article merely needs improved editing which can easily be done. The nominator could have sought WP:EXPERT advice at WP:TALKJUDAISM on the matter to avoid the rush to an AfD. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 06:50, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of those results either mention him in passing or don't mention him at all. Are you sure there's sufficient detail? Hipocrite (talk) 19:49, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hip -- there is no requirement that the majority of results meet GNG. So its irrelevant whether they do. All that is required is that the minority that you implicitly refer to as doing more than mentioning him in passing meet GNG. Epeefleche (talk) 23:09, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I would suggest adding just his name and some credentials to the page: Yeshiva University Center for the Jewish Future, an organization which he currently runs and started. His page in its current state is untenable and should be deleted.Pretzelguy (talk) 23:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC) — Pretzelguy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- NOTE to closing admin: The above is the first and only edit [4] by newby User Pretzelguy (talk · contribs) who cites no WP policies and just raises more questions about himself than about the subject of this AfD. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 08:36, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - NOTE to closing admin: I am of the opposite opinion from IZAK about the notability of the article in question, but I agree with him that the !vote by Pretzelguy should be discounted. BMK (talk) 21:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - University assistant deans are not notable. BMK (talk) 19:48, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He is not an assistant dean, apparently, but a full dean. As well as rabbi, founder of a high school, etc. --Epeefleche (talk) 07:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That does appears to be the case, but nevertheless, he is not the Dean of Yeshiva University, but a dean of one of its units, one among many. BMK (talk) 22:43, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He is the Yeshiva University Executive Vice President for University and Community Social Life, and Dean of the University's Center for the Jewish Future (CJF). --Epeefleche (talk) 22:57, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I can read. Please pay close attention to what I write: he is not The Dean of Yeshiva University, a unitary position, he is ONE OF Yeshiva University's multiple number of deans. Every major department or school within the university will have its own dean, the person is charge of that unit. Unless the dean is otherwise notable being the dean, the head of a department or school within a university does not give one notability.

I'm reacting to your !vote. Based on your misunderstanding that he is an "assistant dean." He's an EVP of the university. And he is dean of the center; as far as I can tell the university has four centers, and Adrienne Asch is director of a second one, and Steven Fine is director of a third one. --Epeefleche (talk) 01:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to this page on their website, Yeshiva University has 12 deans. Being one of 12 people at the same level in a organization does not confer notability.
According to this page of their website, Brander is one of 5 vice presidents of the university, and there are two senior vice presidents above that level on the totem pole. Again, being one of five people three levels down from the top does not confer notability. BMK (talk) 01:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, my !vote is based primarily on GNG. But he is one of four deans of a Center at the university -- and the deans of two of the other centers are also notable, with wp articles. And he is also a rabbi, and has been the spiritual leader of two synagogues, and has founded the Weinbaum Yeshiva High School, and was Chairman of the Resolutions Committee of the Rabbinical Council of America, and has had at least two articles in RSs fully devoted to him or his works and many others that have more than passing mention of him. It's not a determination made solely on "is being Dean of a Center of the university enough?" --Epeefleche (talk) 01:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we know his resume. The one thing you omit is that none of that adds up to notability. BMK (talk) 02:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To the contrary. Meeting wp:GNG by having significant coverage by virtue of having at least two articles in RSs fully devoted to him or his works and many others that have more than passing mention of him adds up to notability. --Epeefleche (talk) 07:05, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A haphazard list of minor accomplishments none of which rises to the level of notability for me. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:55, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As the majority of the !voters have indicated, he is notable. Simply because he meets GNG, including a 15-paragaph article about him in an RS, and various other RS articles that contain more than passing mention of him. It doesn't matter whether he is an assistant dean (he is a full dean it appears) or a janitor -- if he meets GNG, he is notable for wp purposes. And while the 15-paragraph biographical review of him is anything but "haphazard," that wouldn't matter -- GNG encompasses substantial RS coverage, whether haphazard or not. Furthermore, the assertion that the RS coverage has "no detail" is clearly incorrect, as discussed above. Epeefleche (talk) 20:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that there is one article which meets the requirement of GNG (i.e. independent reliable secondary sources) does not mean that the subject necessarily passes GNG, which says, quite specifically:
  "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article (emphasis added)
  What you have here is a man who's been the rabbi at two synagogues, and is now an assistant dean at a university. I'd be hard pressed to think of anyone else in the encyclopedia with credentials that minimal who has an article, but, in any case, those three things -- which are his claim to fame -- do not make him notable. BMK (talk) 20:41, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for admitting that the 15-paragraph RS on him meets GNG. As you will note, I pointed out that the sources that support the conclusion that he meets GNG include not only that article, but also "various other RS articles that contain more than passing mention of him." Examples are in the refs in the article that are to RSs -- there are between half a dozen and a dozen of those. GNG states that "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article". He has received precisely that. That is why the majority of the !voters here have !voted Keep. Epeefleche (talk) 21:22, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are misunderstanding the notability standards. There can be gazillions of articles in reliable sources that mention his name in passing, and it doesn't add one iota to his notability. It takes numerous significant coverage articles to do that, and there is nothing like that for this person - just that one article, and nothing else, which is not sufficient. BMK (talk) 21:26, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me add, if the coverage was exactly what we have now, and Brander had leaped up to become the Dean of Yeshiva University, that would be different. It might still be borderline to some people, but I'd be inclined to say that the Dean of a fairly major institution such as that is inherently notable. This is not the case for Assistant Deans, of which there are a plethora. Brander may someday be notable enough to have an article, but that is not the case at this time. BMK (talk) 21:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've somewhow mis-read (again) what I wrote. I wrote -- twice now; this is the third time: "the sources that support the conclusion that he meets GNG include not only that article, but also "various other RS articles that contain more than passing mention of him." And that is what the majority of the !voters here have also said. Epeefleche (talk) 21:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't misread, I do not share your evaluation of those other articles. They are not significant coverage. You've got press releases masquerading as a newspaper article and other garbage like that, and they are far from sufficient to show notability.
Also, please remember that AfD is not a !vote, it's the quality of the arguments which determine the closing, so it's silly to keep pointing out the numbers, especially when the discussion is still ongoing (and particularly when there are 4 "keep" !votes and 3 "delete" votes). We're less than halfway through the 7 day period. BMK (talk) 22:03, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Brander is a substantially influential figure in both the Jewish and Academic spheres. He warrants a page on the merit of his research and rulings are also of not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.98.196.147 (talk) 13:26, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The IP address above has no edits credited to it since 2009 except for this comment.

Are there reliable sources that say that? BMK (talk) 14:24, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article reflects many RSs that speak of his leadership positions in the religious and academic communities (spiritual leader at the Lincoln Square Synagogue, rabbi of the Boca Raton Synagogue, founder of the Weinbaum Yeshiva High School, "Top 50 Jewish Community Builder" list, YU EVP, Dean of DJF, Chairman of the Resolutions Committee of the Rabbinical Council of America), and cite his religious opinions--for example in an article devoted to discussing his opinion with regard to the impact of a natural disaster on Jewish law requirements to observe the Sabbath. Epeefleche (talk) 19:31, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone has an opinion, and I assume every rabbi expresses his or hers, but I see no indication in the sources provided that Brander's are "influential". BTW, what kind of "research" does he do, and what authority has he to make "rulings"? What I'm seeing here from his advocates is a lot of hand-waving and boot-strapping, not clear-cut and straightforward notability and significance. BMK (talk) 21:26, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not every rabbi has full articles in RSs about an opinion of his. Not every rabbi is the spiritual leader of a synagogue (or, here, two). Or founds a high school. Or is Chairman of the Resolutions Committee of the Rabbinical Council of America. Or has the other indicia. None of this is hand-waving -- it is all RS-supported hard-fact straight-forward material. The hand-waving is the effort to ignore it. As to the level of his authority -- it is the level inherent in the various positions indicated above and in the article and relative to the institutions (the two synagogues, the high school, the university, the Rabbinical Council of America) with which he has held those positions, but it would be off-topic to discuss here the details further and it is of course irrelevant what "research" he does -- thought if you look at his writings perhaps you can deduce it.Epeefleche (talk) 21:42, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep Brander is a wonderful figure who is inspiring and also fulfills all the biographical requirements for wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.102.47 (talk) 18:39, 2 May 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Note to closing admin: I have struck out the above comment for these reasons: The above IP has said in his edit summaries on the article that he or she knows Brander personally, and the editor has been repeatedly trying to add a large amount of unsubstantiated unsourced information into the article on the basis of their personal knowledge, over the objections of other editors. (They have also used 66.87.117.237, 129.98.152.14 and other addresses to do this.) The material they have been adding is a mixture of plausible and outright falsehoods, hoaxes, and jokes, things such as comments that Brander is self-ordained, that he has "not yet won a Nobel Prize" but has been nominated numerous times for the Peace Prize, that Brander has been compared to Abraham Lincoln (with a ref an article the title of which is "Rumor is Rabbi Brander breathes"), that because of his work with "granular composites" Brander has been given honorary Iowa citizenship, and so on. These are vandalistic edits, which editors on both sides of this issue can agree damage the article (which, if it is kept, should be the best possible article it can be). These actions should not be rewarded by allowing the editor to participate here, and the editor is warned that if he or she undoes the strikeout, or otherwise defaces this comment or the rest of the discussion, I will bring in an admin to deal with them. BMK (talk) 19:08, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The IP above has been blocked by Daniel Case for disruptive editing. BMK (talk) 20:34, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this article is a target of constant vandalism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.179.160.18 (talk) 07:27, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note, the above is a first-time one-time drive-by vote [5]. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 08:07, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with BMK. I don't think there are enough RS and that his role is notable. Factsonlyplease39 (talk) 06:49, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to your first AfD !vote. How many RS do you believe are "enough"? And which position are your referring to, inasmuch as he has had many -- rabbi, his positions at the two synagogues, founder of the high school, his positions at the university, or his position at the Rabbinical Council of America?Epeefleche (talk) 07:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Its not a number, but the RSs are not significant. I don't think any of these roles are notable, do his peers (other founders of High Schools? other people with the same university position?) have Wikipedia articles? Factsonlyplease39 (talk) 08:35, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As to the RSs -- you wrote "I don't think there are enough RS." What is "enough" in your view? When you write you don't think they are significant, are you saying that the RS articles devoted to him and his views are not significant? Or the Sun Sentinel and Forward are not significant? As to his peers, that falls under wp:otherstuffexists. But yes, you can find peers of his who are university deans and high school founders (and rabbis leading synagogues) who have wikipedia articles. See, e.g., the 252 rabbis in Category:21st-century rabbis, and List of Deans of Literature, Science, & Arts at the University of Michigan, and high school/prep school/college founder rabbis David Hartman (rabbi) and Moses S. Margolies and Nota Schiller. --Epeefleche (talk) 09:09, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Epeefleche -I don't know if you're aware of ir, but posting a "counter" to every response you disagree with is generally considered ro be borderline disruptive. It's quite clear what your views are regarding the article in questions. That's a single !vote in the scheme of things here, and the !vote of Factsonlyplease39 is another one. Generally speaking, it's not considered good form to counter specific !votes in this manner, as opposed to discussing generalities. BMK (talk) 10:35, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes editors raise different points. For example -- you in your !vote based it on the mistaken belief that he is an assistant dean. New point. Deserved a correction. Similarly here, the editor raises new points, which similarly are being discussed. Who knows -- the discussion has just led to one editor changing their mind; it may lead to others. There is nothing at all improper about that. Epeefleche (talk) 20:23, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Explain to me why J. David Bleich, an article I created back in 2005 that has stood the test of time, is notable but Rabbi Brander is not notable? I have met both in real life. Both are, in their own ways, great scholars and as has been pointed out, subjects of Reliable Sources. P.S. You may delete this comment, but don't delete the article! Man katal (talk) 23:32, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Banned user Shalom Yechiel is not permitted to edit Wikipedia. Hipocrite (talk) 00:52, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Struck out comment from banned user. BMK (talk) 01:04, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment With regards to the being in the top 50 Jewish Community Builders in South Palm beach - this is an area of population of less than [1200] this may need clarification; if this refers to the South of the entire county of Palm Beach this may increase the noteability. It appears to be a lot of minor noteable acheivements but many of them would only be noteable in distinct local areas rather than on a wider scale. If we are after major noteability it doesnt appear to be something that this individual has. Amortias (T)(C) 20:19, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The keep !votes are primarily focused on whether he meets our general notability guideline. Which you can read at wp:GNG. It focuses not (as your analysis does) on whether a person's title is notable (or titles, in this case). But whether the person has received significant coverage in reliable sources. Thus, people can meet GNG if all they are is a rabbi who has been spiritual leader at the Lincoln Square Synagogue, rabbi of the Boca Raton Synagogue, founder of the Weinbaum Yeshiva High School, Dean of DJF, Chairman of the Resolutions Committee of the Rabbinical Council of America ... if they meet GNG ... without worrying about the size of the synagogues, the high school, DJF, etc. Epeefleche (talk) 21:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neither of his positions appear to be of note outside of the communities he is involved in; his role Executive Vice-president for Univeristy and Social Life would have limited effect outside of the University and its associated organisations. His role as Dean for a Centre of a university may be noteable locally but would not be something that people would be able to recall or even be aware of its existence outside of the University itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.102.231.14 (talk) 18:50, 6 May 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]
Delete His job and the refs do not appear to satisfy WP:BIO. BMK makes some good points. Edison (talk) 23:36, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Shepway

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

Wikipedia is not a travel guide. It is not clear that this article could ever be particularly useful to people interested in taking a bus in Shepway, given that one would have to refer to the bus company's web site to confirm that the bus service still exists, what days it runs, what time it runs, and where to get on the bus. List of bus routes have already been established as not notable and are more suited on sites such as Wikivoyage. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 20:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree. All of the information in this article can change overnight on the whim of the transit authority. Why anyone would seek this sort of information on WP is beyond me. Actually, I doubt anyone would. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:31, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As I keep repeating "Wikipedia isn't a fucking travel guide/directory" .... →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 17:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Transwiki to Wikia, or otherwise remove from Wikipedia. This is an omnishambles of a nomination but the policy Wikipedia is not a travel guide does apply here, as does "Wikipedia is not a directory" on the same policy page. Various routes have been to AfD but there's no real strategy as to which are taken to AfD and which we retain. Because of the pendulum swing from editors voting keep and delete there was an RFC at the village pump which equally could not draw a single consensus for keeping or deleting but advised that each list should be nominated individually. This article is unsourced, it's only likely to ever be sourced to primary sources (either 1st party the bus company, or 3rd party the local authority) it's unlikely that any secondary sources will be found to establish either the individual routes or the list of routes as notable and meeting the GNG. Just remember all the rules, and be prepared to kill all the bus route articles :) It is also similar to the file sharing/torrent sites (which is like KickassTorrents or The Pirate Bay, some of which had been blocked by the court orders. Timothyhouse1 (talk) 13:47, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chirayu Amin

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

Delete - This article is not notable. PradeepChowdhury (talk) 20:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep; retaliatory nomination for deletion of A. Chawla and Ayaan Chawla. Nominator is the subject of an SPI. The argument for deletion is WP:JNN, even though the article has three RS that are about this person and he has held executive offices in cricket that I believe combine to meet the notability threshold. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 00:15, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; I do concur with @Kuyabribri and there is no explicit reason for nomination by nominator. Possibly this nomination could be a ourburst/frustration of repeated deletion of articles regarding Ayaan Chawla by the nominator. Apart from the sources present in Chirayu Amin article, there do exist third party sources over a google search. --βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ)^(Support) 15:21, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:43, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stan Kula

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

Not notable per Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis Wgolf (talk) 19:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – per nom.--Wolbo (talk) 12:51, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Collegiate coaches and players are not inherently notable per Project Tennis. A slew of these Cal State Fullerton persons were created in recent days including: Craig Neslage, Ernest Becker, Bob Osborn, Steve White, Tom Ashley, Mark Kabacy, Brad Allen, Bill Etchegaray, and Neale R. Stoner. Perhaps more. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:34, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Kabacy

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

Not notable per Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis Wgolf (talk) 19:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – per nom. --Wolbo (talk) 12:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Collegiate coaches and players are not inherently notable per Project Tennis. A slew of these Cal State Fullerton persons were created in recent days including: Stan Kula, Ernest Becker, Bob Osborn, Steve White, Tom Ashley, Craig Neslage, Brad Allen, Bill Etchegaray, and Neale R. Stoner. Perhaps more. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:57, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Ashley (tennis coach)

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

Not noteable per Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis Wgolf (talk) 19:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – per nom.--Wolbo (talk) 12:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Collegiate coaches and players are not inherently notable per Project Tennis. A slew of these Cal State Fullerton persons were created in recent days including: Stan Kula, Ernest Becker, Bob Osborn, Steve White, Craig Neslage, Mark Kabacy, Brad Allen, Bill Etchegaray, and Neale R. Stoner. Perhaps more. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 21:31, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brantly Womack

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

Does not appear to be a noteworthy professor, lacks multiple reliable sources in which to build an article. PROD removed as "probably notable as both WP:PROF and WP:CREATIVE," but a search for sources to support this was lacking. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if he's not notable as a professor his authorship of several books makes him notable. Discussed for example here. Candleabracadabra (talk) 20:43, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep holder of named chair at University of Virginia, (in fact, the successive holder of several named chairs at several universities) , and therefore unquestionably notable. Source is his official CV, which, though not third party, is reliable. I could probably find the campus newspaer or press release, but that's no more reliable, even less. because those sources tend to be inexact. An article showing publishing several books by major international publishers translated into other languages is normally notable , and questioning what can be easily proven is not all that helpful, though additional sources never hurt. I do not deprod without good reason. DGG ( talk ) 21:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable as a professor (named chair), CV for academics are reliable, impressive publications. --I am One of Many (talk) 02:41, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added refs to 3 reviews of his work in scholarly journals. There's plenty more that could be added. Meets WP:PROF, as already noted. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:55, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as clearly above. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:16, 30 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep -- named chair at significant university; nom is encouraged to read WP:PROF -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 15:50, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:35, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Neslage

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

This is one of the articles by this user that I had a prod on for a while and that later got removed-this is also one of the many non noteable ones he did. Wgolf (talk) 19:08, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Collegiate coaches and players are not inherently notable per Project Tennis. A slew of these Cal State Fullerton persons were created in recent days including: Stan Kula, Ernest Becker, Bob Osborn, Steve White, Tom Ashley, Mark Kabacy, Brad Allen, Bill Etchegaray, and Neale R. Stoner. Perhaps more. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:50, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – per Fyunck(click).--Wolbo (talk) 12:50, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:53, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Master Liam Lockran

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No qualifying awards. No independent reliable sourcing. No reliably sourced biographical content. Substantially promotional elements, created by SPA. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:59, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. I came across this article after dealing with some copyvios related to the subject over on Commons and I was planning to AfD but it looks like you beat me to it. --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 20:39, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me with what I can do to help save this article from deletion. I added his notable Vanity Fair Magazine article. Does that help? [[User:SutortaSutorta (talk) 21:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)]][reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This vanity fair article about him would be a one line mention of a master liam in an articlem about Murdock and myspace? None of the other sourcing is anywhere close to cutting the mustard. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - Fails PORNBIO. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to LaTour#The_Squids. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:36, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Squids

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

Fails WP:NBAND. First two sources given are trivial mentions, the third is an old library notice. PROD was needlessly declined, as the article WAS eligible for PROD as the previous AfD was never concluded, given that the first incarnation of the article had been speedily deleted under CSD A7. Safiel (talk) 18:38, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google didn't turn up enough to ring the notability bell. Subject seems to fail BAND and GNG. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:34, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to LaTour#The_Squids which already discusses the band. There are some sources, but possibly not enough. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any sourceable content to LaTour#The_Squids, which passes WP:NBAND (this band does not).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Proposal is biased, from a devoted deletionist that damages wikipedia, removes valid articles about subcultures that he knows not a thing, is possibly racist and deserves some scrutiny! QuackDoctor (talk) 21:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Caution Your comment is inconsistent with Wikipedia guidelines that require editors to assume good faith and to be civil in our dealings with one another. This can result in administrative sanctions. I suggest an apology is in order. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. LaTour#The_Squids seems the best place for any sourcable content. Bishonen | talk 16:30, 1 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Merge. LaTour#The_Squids, all the sourcing fails wp:notability--Dkriegls (talk to me!) 05:25, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:35, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Putroe Neng

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

It's hard to tell whether this article is about fact or fiction, but the categories listed imply it's supposed to be about a real person. There are no reliable sources to support any claims--the only reference is to a novel. The article reads more like legend/story than fact and could clearly use a rewrite if it's kept.Mdtemp (talk) 18:30, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree - the only source given is the novel and if kept there are essentially two choices - cut this down to bare bones sourced fact or convert the article to one about the novel. Neither option ensures notablility will be met.Peter Rehse (talk) 19:57, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there are a whopping six Google Scholar hits for "Putroe Neng", all of which are in Indonesian. If she were one of the few Chinese from 1800 BC we know by name (as the author claimed on the talk page), there would be far more sources. Huon (talk) 23:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This seems to be a machine translation of a Chinese or possibly Malay tale based on events during the reign of the Ming dynasty Zhengde Emperor (r. 1505-1521), around the time Aceh was founded by Ali Mughayat Syah in 1511. The mention of 1180 BC is spurious on that basis. I can't find any corroboration in English or Chinese so it's a GNG failure. The English is sadly too far gone to attempt a rescue. Philg88 ^♦talk 08:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT (it's a mess of word salad and Chinglish), and WP:SNOW (nobody wants to keep this NN article). Bearian (talk) 22:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do not agree : i can prove it with picture of her entombment, here : Makam Putroe Neng

also you can google it : putroe neng (Bappeda lhokseumawe (talk) 05:01, 1 May 2014 (UTC));[reply]

Comment @Bappeda lhokseumawe: Unfortunately the link you provided is dead (from the UK) at least, but I found some other pictures of the tomb. I don't dispute that Putroe Neng existed, but the English in the current article is unfathomable. All the references I can find seem to be in Indonesian. Do you know what her Chinese name was or whether there are any English books about her? Philg88 ^♦talk 06:20, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A picture of the purported grave of a character in a popular novel is not proof (read tourist trap). I also expect that the novel was based on a real character but it is impossible to separate out the novel from the real person not to mention the fact that the only source is the novel. Until that is changed we have to assume that the the character is based on the authors imagination. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:12, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, unless someone can come up with Putroe Neng's Chinese name, which in turn provides references, it doesn't look as if there's anything more that can be done to salvage the article. Philg88 ^♦talk 16:42, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Reply

Link is up, check again Makam Putroe Neng Her chinese name is : Nian Nio Liang Khie she is a legend here, especially in lhokseumawe city and there is a prove of her entombment. we can develop and dig more deeper about her life, the government of lhokseumawe city also seek and develop about it. modern reference, the novel is based on true story of her life. (Bappeda lhokseumawe (talk) 17:08, 1 May 2014 (UTC)); Here another reference an old document in year 1972 Atjeh Cultural Festival (Bappeda lhokseumawe (talk) 17:27, 1 May 2014 (UTC));[reply]

Do you know the Chinese characters used for her name? Philg88 ^♦talk 17:43, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Philg88: i`m not Chinese, so i dont know her Chinese character, sorry.... (Bappeda lhokseumawe (talk) 17:55, 1 May 2014 (UTC));[reply]

So what do you think all? real people, real legend and true story, still marked for deletion? we can develop it together and dig more deeper about her life, i still looking more reliable source about when she was born and when she was dead, but still not found it, maybe you guys can help me to develop it (Bappeda lhokseumawe (talk) 18:14, 1 May 2014 (UTC));[reply]

@Bappeda lhokseumawe: The problem is that we have nothing in English to work from, which is why I asked for the Chinese characters because I can translate anything based on that. Unfortunately, I don't speak Indonesian, so the document you referenced above is of no use and gets us no further along. Philg88 ^♦talk 04:27, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 08:49, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I searched Google Books and Google Scholar for the presumed Chinese name. A grand total of three hits, all in Indonesian. Whether she lived in 1800BCE or 1500CE, I would expect at least some non-Indonesian sources on a female Chinese admiral. Huon (talk) 18:23, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Huon: Indeed. The Chinese name isn't correct - it doesn't follow the rules of pinyin, juyutping or Wade-Giles, more likely a Malay interpretation based on their phonetic system. Philg88 ^♦talk 13:14, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted. Non-admin closure. Safiel (talk) 18:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why learing programming is hard?

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

The PROD on this was removed, so I have initiated this AFD instead with the same reasoning: "Not needed essay: this is an encyclopaedia, not a collection of essays. (Bear in mind essays are permitted in userspace.)" Mat ty.007 17:58, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTESSAY. Sjö (talk) 18:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Stardock. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stellar Frontier

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

Game not cited anywhere: does not meet WP:NVG; article is entirely original research. EternalFlare (talk) 14:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Stardock, trimming down to just the essential facts. I have only been able to find one small capsule review on CNet. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 13:06, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I can't find a huge amount of third-party coverage either. I asked around at Stardock and they came up with their 1997 magazine which promoted Stellar Frontier as a cross-platform game for both Windows and OS/2, which would at least be useful as a primary source, and a OS/2 e-zine (dated 16 June 2001) with screenshot which mentions in the general news section ("From the Editor") that SF had finally had its 1.0 release and that CD sales back in 1997-98 were being fulfilled. It describes the game as "an online multiplayer 2D scrolling space shooter with some very attractive graphics" and mentions the Admiral's Club (it was basically moved to a free-to-play model). There's also a brief news item relating to its bundling with eComStation (not sure if it actually happened), and a photo of the developer Doug Hendrix. GreenReaper (talk) 02:40, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to parent subject. Candleabracadabra (talk) 15:40, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy/SNOW redirect to Donald T. Sterling (non-admin closure) p b p 14:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

V. Stiviano

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

Was between this and a prod-from the looks of it though its a model who has done charity work but not anything major that goes to Wikipedia standards-while I do have to admit she sounds noble, its not quite notable guidelines. Wgolf (talk) 14:30, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Donald Sterling. She's not really independently notable: she's mainly known for her role in the Sterling racism controversy (WP:BLP1E). She got a bit of earlier local coverage about her marital breakdown with Sterling[6] but that's only there because of him, not her. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per above. I'm not seeing coverage in reliable sources to establish notability for this person beyond her involvement in the (most recent) Donald Sterling incident. Gongshow talk 06:08, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-yeah a redirect does sound the best-considering that it is basically a inherited issue. Wgolf (talk) 17:39, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. No sources. — goethean 17:40, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As was previously stated non-notable, no sources etc.. There should be no redirect just a clear and simple delete. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 23:31, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Multiple sources exist now. [7][8][9][10] etc. So the "no sources" argument probably won't hold up; on the other hand WP:BLP1E fits, and most likely counsels a redirect.--Arxiloxos (talk) 00:04, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to o Donald Sterling. Not currently notable except for her association with Sterling. WP:BLP1E advises to not create a standalone article in this case.—Bagumba (talk) 06:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:37, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tip (Finger Eleven song)

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NSONGS Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:16, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no sourced material to merge, no significant coverage found to show that a standalone article is needed. Gongshow talk 17:41, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of coverage from reliable third-party sources. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 07:50, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Elections in India. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 04:36, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indian general elections 1951–1971

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

Unnecessary duplication and no logic to have a separate article. All information already there in the separate articles. So merge into Indian general election, 1951,Indian general election, 1957,Indian general election, 1962,Indian general election, 1967 and Indian general election, 1971. Shyamsunder (talk) 11:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Completely pointless when there are individual articles for the elections and a main Elections in India article. Number 5 7 11:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - A prod of the article was previously contested because content had been copied from this article into other articles (I think the ones that Shyamsunder is suggesting a merge to, but I'm not sure). If content was copied, then the history needs to be kept somewhere, so the article can't be deleted. Instead it could be redirected to one of the articles where content was merged (or anywhere else that is appropriate). Calathan (talk) 14:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps just redirect to Elections in India? Number 5 7 15:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like a good article to redirect to. Calathan (talk) 17:13, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Elections in India per User:Number 57. Pburka (talk) 19:10, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, this article has served its purpose, no longer necessary to retain it. However, I insist that the complete result tables be retained in the corresponding articles on each election. --Soman (talk) 06:15, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Another administrator has already deleted the WP namespace redirect left over from the move. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:54, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A.Veeramani

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

Does not appear to meet WP:PROF. PROD was removed by author. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:03, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The author has moved the article to the Wikipedia namespace and then moved the resulting redirect. An admin will have to sort this out. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is written in the first person, so does not even pretend to be an article. Imaginatorium (talk) 20:08, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I moved it back to article space so that discussion here can continue. It looks like a cv rather than an article, so I think WP:NOTLINKEDIN applies, and it would also be inappropriate to have this in userspace. He has enough books published (even discounting the edited volumes) that there's a chance of collecting enough independent reviews of them to pass WP:AUTHOR or maybe even WP:PROF, but I doubt there's much worth saving from this autobiography. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:16, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Little sign of impact on scholarly literature. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. It looks like this was copied from his CV. Like David Eppstein (talk) stated, this article would have to be completely overhauled to focus on his works. As it is, it should be removed. --Kbabej (talk) 18:14, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Weisman

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

Unsourced biography. I am unable to find any sources that discuss the subject in any depth. Fails WP:BIO. - Mr X 10:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless anyone can find sources - I can't. GoldenRing (talk) 12:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete under WP:CSD#A7. No claims of significance here. A watch repairman. The Claim that his prowess was so great that his watches were used for artillery timing seems unremarkable: in 1917, a spring-wound watch was about the most accurate timepiece available (whether tuned by Weisman or not) -- artillerymen would have no other sources of timekeeping for "artillery timing" (whatever that is).

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Data Palette

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

I am not seeing how this passes WP:PRODUCT and Wikipedia:Notability (software). One inline ref is not accessible without subscription; the other is from Network World, which itself seems like a publication of dubious notability. A review in two or three niche websites is not enough to make software notable. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete same observations. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 19:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Advertisement. Gamaliel (talk) 23:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Current Research In Drug Discovery (Journal)

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

Non-notable new journal published by "Science Publications" (listed on Jeffrey Beall's list of predatory OA publishers). Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 10:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the journal itself is not on the Beall's list anyway, in my opinion, you cannot judge the journal in this simple way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giancarlobasile (talk • contribs) 16:45, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Even disregarding the fact that this is a journal published by a shady publisher at best, there is not a shred of evidence that this meets our notability criteria (or ever will). That you are willing to tie your name and reputation to this kind of stuff is your responsibility. What we list in WP or not is the community's. --Randykitty (talk) 19:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I share your point of view we will post again when suitable references will be available, please delete

Delete as advertising. Bakerstmd (talk) 18:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don Familton

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

Non-notable boxing trainer Peter Rehse (talk) 10:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Coaching boxing at the YMCA is nice, but not notable. Nothing in the article shows notability and there is no significant coverage of him. Making a set of videos also fails to show notability.Mdtemp (talk) 16:19, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and nothing in the article shows notability.204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:11, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Denis Douglin

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

Non-notable boxer does not meet WP:NBOX or WP:GNG. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources such as here. Candleabracadabra (talk) 20:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That article is about his mother and the novelty of a female boxing trainer, especially one with a regular job.Mdtemp (talk) 16:16, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That article is just one example, and it's about the boxer and his relationship with his mother as the article title, the photo and the article itself make clear. Candleabracadabra (talk) 17:12, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That article is referenced in the article but it and the other references are not enough to show notability (substantial coverage). It was in effect a human interest piece.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:25, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NBOX and notability is not inherited from your mother. His Golden Gloves titles are nice but not enough to show notability.Mdtemp (talk) 16:16, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NBOX. Seems like every boxer has a human interest story, but not every boxer is notable. Currently fails GNG.204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:23, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coverage, yes; substantial coverage in what we require for athletes and any other requirements listed at WP:NBOX, no. Do not see enough WP:SIGCOV to warrant a standalone article. Mkdw ^talk 18:52, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Leidenroth

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

Declined speedy delete. Entirely non-notable: references are entry at find a grave and a single mention in a book about Adolf Hitler. Living in the same lodging as Hitler for a short while and being another unsuccessful painter is an entirely inadequate claim to notability. TheLongTone (talk) 09:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, go ahead and delete it. Jonas Vinther (talk) 14:37, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable enough. Kierzek (talk) 12:05, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Hoax or not, there is not a single source in the article. However, the problem is that the article was hijackecd in March 2014 - the old article about the Manila radio station was overwritten by the text on non-notable provincial radio station. For this reason, I restore the previous version. It used to have a link to the station website, which is working, but blacklisted (to be found in the history); right now the article is unsourced. If someone wants to delete the old article a new AfD should be opened.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:34, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DZUR

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

Does not exist and it is clearly a hoax. The original article was been moved to DZUR (defunct) Hamham31 Heke!KushKush! 06:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Definatley not a hoax, Google. -- Fauzan^{✆ talk} _{✉ email} 18:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to My Only Radio#MOR Stations Nationwide As usual for these Filipino radio stations, many of them are repeaters of national radio networks with no local content, which this one is. However, the "defunct" DZUR article should have its own AfD because the reason for it being defunct is possibly for illegal broadcasting through its entire history. That article makes multiple mentions of it being a pirate operation, but attempts to WP:WEASEL out of verifying that with peacock language about how it brought a format to its service area. It is highly unlikely this station and DZUR/defunct could legally hold the same calls at the same time, not to mention the unreferenced hat for the defunct article has a date of April 2008, suggesting an inappropriate article restoration removed by the information for the real DZUR. Nate • (chatter) 20:58, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as probable hoax. Claiming to be established in 2002, it is not listed in the NSO 2010 Philippine Yearbook [11]. --Bluemask (talk) 08:49, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I know this comment is not counted, but I would like to say this guys: (To Fauzan) Yes I know it was existed, but I consider all parts of the articles that had been made by an IP address (which I suspected Petermusngi again) was truly and positively a hoax. DZUR callsign is actually and originally used by 107.9 U-Radio here in the Philippines before it was inactive in the year 2013. I tried to move back the page from DZUR (defunct) to this article but a message revealing that some parts of the article contains a spam. I wouldn't really considerate this article as a hoax, but having an M.O.R. Pampanga is not really true. And one thing, it is very funny that M.O.R. Pampanga-hoax will be reached thru the areas of Region 4-a and b which freaks me out, hence ABS-CBN Corporation told me that their transmitter in Manila is located in Antipolo which is part of Rizal province. So I made a suspicion about this article, you know, kinda freak me out. Hamham31 Heke!KushKush! 15:12, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete This is a hoax, all links are references are for another radio station by the same name 107.9 in Manila. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 19:04, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not 100% sure this is a hoax, it might have been a spin off station, I'll refrain from comment as I am unable to find sources. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 16:38, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This page is being G3'd. Nerd in Texas (talk) 15:59, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Prematurely closing this BLP AfD per SNOW; it seems clear that BLP1E is deemed to apply, and there is no need to let this linger--and I say this with the fiat of the creator. Drmies (talk) 00:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cassey Ho

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

Even with the very minor Target "controversy," this article fails the significant coverage requirements for Wikipedia notability. Articles about her are sparse, usually mentioning her in passing or extremely briefly. Other sources are self-referential from personal blogs or websites. Recommend delete. Veggies (talk) 05:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'd have waited until this was off the main page to nominate, considering how several thousand people may be exposed to this AFD. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Her notability does not derive from the Target controversy. It is one factor. She won a Shorty Award. In the Asian community, she is considered a rising star. She has been covered in depth in several reliable sources. Two of the sixteen sources are from her website, cited together with other sources, so none of the content establishing notability relies on personal blogs or websites. I am One of Many (talk) 06:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Three "sources" are primary sources from her blog. HUGE red-flag. Remember what WP:SPS says: "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer."
One (The LA Times) is an instructional blurb on how to do exercises. Not at all about the subject.
Another source, (Raine magazine) while potentially solid, does not yet have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" as required by the reliable source requirements.
The sources with the most inline citations are from the same publisher (Forbes) and the same author (Humphrey) with 10 of the 28 footnotes cited.
Three sources are nearly replicates (Fitness - "cassey ho", ABC - "More People Getting Rich...", and Daily Mail - "How we're cashing in...") about her followership and income, NOT about her. This seems like puffery.
One (SF Chinatown) only lists her as a beauty pagent winner--not anything "in depth." -- Veggies (talk) 07:58, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

The blog sources are not used to establish notability in this article, so there is no violation of policy if you read the policy carefully.
You dismiss three sources reliable sources that are about her notability: she is a successful social media entrepreneur. They are written by different people.
You ignore the fact that she won a major award in her field of notability covered by Fox News, which supports the notability of the articles you dismiss.
She is recognized in the Asian community as a rising Asian entrepreneur as covered in Asian Fortune.
Winning a beauty pagent in high school and identifying the photoshopped thigh gap are interesting facts about her, but are not about her notability. Her notability concerns her success as a social media entrepreneur.
To argue that she is not notable, you have to dismiss he winning a shorty award report by Fox News, her coverage as a social Media entrepreneur in Forbes, ABC News, Fitness Magazine, the Daily Mail, Asian Fortune, and Raine Magazine.
I note that if she were a porn actress, winning a major award in her field would have been sufficient for notability.
Finally, her DYK received over 5,000 hits, way more than any other DYK in her set and way more than is typical. The reason is that she is notable to the general public who read Wikipedia.

I am One of Many (talk) 08:27, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

If her notability is established around her "social media entrepreneur" status, I'm not seeing much aside from a single Forbes writer's work and a number of minor references as part of greater surveys of health and internet topics. And if you're dismissing the "thigh gap" thing as not establishing her notability, it undermines one of the Forbes pieces that was written in the wake of and about Ho's involvement in that non-event.
- Part of the article is directly on the thigh gap incident, the rest is on her as a social media fitness person. I am One of Many (talk) 22:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The three pieces I cited are not at all about her except in mentioning her as a media personality with an unremarkable income and some following online. Also note that she fails all four criteria for creative professionals: She's not "widely cited by peers or successors." So far as I'm aware she hasn't come up with any "significant new concept, theory or technique." She has not created any "significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." And her works haven't "become a significant monument, ... been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, ... won significant critical attention..."
- Not everyone notable in Wikipedia fall under Academics, Creative professionals, Crime victims and perpetrators, Entertainers, Pornographic actors and models, Military personnel, politicians, and sports personalities. If people under these categories were all that could have BLPs in Wikipedia, then Pope Francis would have to be sent to AfD. We have other articles for which the person is question is notable because they are an entrepreneur, for example:Evan Williams (entrepreneur), Jerry Yang (entrepreneur), David Brown (entrepreneur), Fred Harvey (entrepreneur), Peter Jones (entrepreneur), so being an entrepreneur is an established area of notability on Wikipedia. I am One of Many (talk) 22:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Of the living people you cited, one is a BBC host, one is CEO of Yahoo!, and the other is the founder of Blogger and former CEO of Twitter. If you're trying to make some kind of argument based on equity, I think Ms. Ho has a bit more to go before she ranks among these people. -- Veggies (talk) 02:07, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The people you mention have significant contributions, however, and have/had massive fortunes. Having a tiny company that makes "six figures" isn't noteworthy; more than ten million people in the USA alone make that much, and they don't all have Wikipedia entries. 2601:D:CB80:97:5C72:D2C0:3DEC:E877 (talk) 23:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article in Asian Fortune is not dedicated to her or much about her contributions, but rather a brief blurb about her as part of a group of Asian internet celebrities.
- Three people are featured in this article as paradigms of Asians being successful on the Internet, Kim, Ho, and Panahon. This is exactly the kind of article that establishes notability by making comparisons and picking out the main figures in the field. I am One of Many (talk) 22:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't self-reference Wikipedia hits for notability. -- Veggies (talk) 09:33, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- In this case, over 6,000 hits, which is rare for a DYK, is directly related to her notability as a social media entrepreneur. We got that many hits because people want to know about her and providing information for notable people is one of the jobs of Wikipedia.I am One of Many (talk) 22:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I, personally, clicked the link because it seemed so un-noteworthy and that made me wonder why it was on Wikipedia at all. I wonder how many other hits were a result of this very oddity. 2601:D:CB80:97:5C72:D2C0:3DEC:E877 (talk) 23:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not clear how you think WP:BLP1E applies here? Winning a high school beauty pagent or finding the thigh gap on the Target website have nothing to do with her notability as I see it. They are interesting facts about her. Her notability is as a social media entrepreneur. Because of that, she did get press for the thigh gap incident, but she wouldn't have without her notability as a social media entrepreneur. --I am One of Many (talk) 08:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Creating some fitness videos and posting them on YouTube does not make you notable, even if you do call it being a social media entrepreneur and have a six-figure income. An award for twitter content is neither well-known nor significant. GoldenRing (talk) 13:08, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The issue here is WP:BIO. Why do these sources fail to establish notability?
Forbes [12] Covers her as a social media fitness entrepreneur.
Forbes [13] Covers primarily over the Thigh gap incident.
Fox News [14] Singes her and another person out for winning an award (Shorty Awards).
Asian Fortune [15] Covers her as a rising Asian star on the Internet.
Fitness [16] for wining their Fitterati Blogger Award, which I did not mention in the article.
Daily Mail [17] Covers her as a social media fitness entrepreneur.
ABC News [18] Covers her as a social media fitness entrepreneur.
Raine Magazine [19] Covers her as a Fitness Entrepreneur.

I am One of Many (talk) 15:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How about you answer the criticisms that have been raised rather than continually repeat your points. -- Veggies (talk) 15:39, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I did answer you criticisms. WP:SPS does not apply because notability is not based on primary sources or blogs, but the sources listed above. I understand that you don't like Raine Magazine as a reliable source, but that does not refute the other reliable sources. I can only argue based on policy, and to show that she does not meet notability as a social media entrepreneur, one has to argue that the sources do not establish this. I am One of Many (talk) 18:33, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Be aware, as I stated, that she completely fails the criteria of notability for creative artists. -- Veggies (talk) 19:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The key point is whether Shorty Award constitutes a major awards that would constitute her notability with an article in Wikipedia. I'd say this is debatable. SYSS Mouse (talk) 16:27, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this is part of establishing her notability. The award was in the area of claimed notability. But is the award notable? Well we do have a Wikipedia article on the awards: Shorty Awards. They are also covered by reliable sources, which looks to establish notability:

I am One of Many (talk) 18:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That certainly establishes the notability for an article on the Shorty Awards. The question is whether this notability ipso facto transfers onto the recipients. -- Veggies (talk) 19:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

True but we do have other articles with notability tied to these awards: StockTwits, Internet Killed Television, BNO News, Athletes for a Cure, Rachael Dunlop, Mrs Stephen Fry, and Epic Meal Time. This at least establishes a precedent. I am One of Many (talk) 19:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, most of the Shorty Awards recipients do not have their own articles. And the ones you've listed above (except for Mrs Stephen Fry who is quite shaky in my view) have been reviewed in-depth by multiple reliable secondary sources. -- Veggies (talk) 19:57, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Yes, most Shorty Awards winners do not have their own articles. As I said above, it is one consideration for notability. As with the articles cited above, Cassey Ho also has multiple secondary sources on her notability as a social media in the area of fitness. I am One of Many (talk) 22:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A search on "Shorty awards" reveals that over 100 articles on Wikipedia cite them [27] I am One of Many (talk) 23:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Personal and Career in social fitness have nothing potentially noteworthy. The "identified an ad" does not seem to meet the requirements for noteworthiness, especially since there seems to be no clear evidence that she was the only one who noticed the poor Photoshop. Winning a minor award is not itself automatically noteworthy just because the award itself has a Wikipedia page. Her winning an award might belong in only one place: In the list of winners of that award on the Shorty Awards page. 2601:D:CB80:97:5C72:D2C0:3DEC:E877 (talk) 21:37, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E - Sorry but simply posting on YT and getting a non notable award doesn't make you notable. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 16:57, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Montauk Project. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 03:04, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Preston Nichols

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

This article doesn't state how this random conspiracy theorist is in any way notable, and searches of his name seem to mostly turn up results of the "this guy is nuts" variety. He seems to have invented the Montauk Project from whole cloth, so if this article is deleted, that one is on pretty shaky ground. Closedmouth (talk) 04:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

merge to Montauk Project as I cannot find anything about him other than that conspiracy theory. Mangoe (talk) 14:01, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

merge and redirect per Mangoe - David Gerard (talk) 15:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete (G7). Randykitty (talk) 14:01, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nicaraguan film historians

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

For a "list" you think it have more then 1 person. Plus looks like she does not even have a page! Wgolf (talk) 02:01, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment okay that person has a page-which was made by the same person which is also under the category of lists of Nicaraguan film historians-which that seems like a misuse of a cat with just one person, also-I can't find a list for any other country for this. Wgolf (talk) 02:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-author of this page wrote on my page that they endorse this deletion. Wgolf (talk) 03:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reply-Yes I agree with the deletion of the page because I couldn't find any other film historian from Nicaragua just one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisdip1 (talk • contribs) 05:37, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does this qualify for speedy under G7? GoldenRing (talk) 13:26, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus appears to be that the subject is real and notable. Issues with the precise content, and title, of the article are beyond the scope of AfD (which is not for cleanup) and should be discussed at the article talk page. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:46, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bolivarian propaganda

AfDs for this article:

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

No notability (term "Bolivarian propaganda" or any related term has never been used in a reliable source), almost full article is unfixable violation of WP:OR (particularly WP:SYNTH), systematically biased and intended as a page attacking the subject. There is nothing which can be actually referenced for this topic without constituting a violation of the aforementioned policies. There are no equivalent articles for any other contemporary political movement except in extreme cases such as Nazi propaganda, and there is no reason for there to be about this one, any more than for any other. Zozs (talk) 01:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree It should be kept as it is an important piece of Chavez's story. There is a substantial amount of reliable sources saying that there is obvious propaganda being use to promote his ideologies. I doubt that The New York Times, BBC, The Boston Globe and CATO Institute can not be reliable.

The article has not changed much since it was decided to KEEP back in April 2012. It was a unanimous decision. Until my recent edits involving education and some pictures added, there was no discussion about deleting this article. In fact, there were only 10 edits since the decision and when I began editing the article. This article should not be deleted.--Zfigueroa (talk) 02:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The labeling of something as 'propaganda' (rather than as 'normal' expressions of support for an ideology, certain political views)--except in notable cases (Nazi Propaganda, Propaganda in the Soviet Union, etc.)--reflects a clear subjective judgement (negative POV). Thus this article could only refer to opinions/allegations, or to media campaigns (by political parties, the government, supporters, etc) not traditionally labeled 'propaganda'. This same material would be better suited (and, in some cases, is already covered) within existing articles. For example, there already exists multiple articles on the ideology associated with the 'Bolivarian' movement (Bolivarianism, the Bolivarian Revolution, Chavismo, Socialism of the 21st Century, etc.). There also exist innumerable articles on the politics of this movement, and countless articles on Venezuelan media and popular culture (Media of Venezuela, Censorship_in_Venezuela, Community and alternative media in Venezuela, Media representation of Hugo Chávez, Venezuelan art, Television in Venezuela, Culture of Venezuela, Aló Presidente, 'popular culture' sections of Hugo Chavez, etc. as well as articles for each of the Bolivarian Missions, for each of the 15 elections held since 1998, etc.).--Riothero (talk) 03:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The term "Bolivarian propaganda" has been used before.

Here are a few uses:

To get an idea of the importance of Bolivarian propaganda as a source of alternative political education one can use the testimony of Hugo Chavez himself - Manuel Anselmi

After the meeting, Chavez and the Bolivarian propaganda machine spun the meeting as a new high in Venezuelan church-state relations. - B. WELLS/GENNATIEMPO EMAIL 05/19/06

The primary purpose of the so-called "ALBA houses" established within Peru during the last year is to spread Bolivarian propaganda via programs like the Venezuelan "Miracle Mission" that provides eye surgeries to poor Peruvians. - Embassy Lima (Peru)

The example of Puno suggests Bolivarian propaganda carries little weight for dissatisfied citizens seeking tangible benefits from local governments. - Embassy Lima

If anything, the page should have a lot more contributions (preferably more neutral) in order to save it.--Zfigueroa (talk) 05:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Still does not justify its uses, and that's 4 random sources. In the WikiLeaks source, "Bolivarian propaganda" is just a term someone used in some leaked e-mail. Elcomercio.pe is also just displaying some leaked e-mail. And that "cable gate" is just some leaked confidential document. This term is not used in publications, it is not used by the media, it is used nowhere, because it simply does not exist, as Riothero argued. A pro-Chavez campaign exists, but just the same as a pro-Obama campaign exists, which has an article which is nothing like this article, which definitely cannot be fixed. Zozs (talk) 13:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the nomination should have made clear what the nominator thinks has changed since the last AfD, rather than just posting a new AfD with the same reasons. Use of the term is not widespread in the secondary literature but it's there. The article itself is well-sourced and the complaint seems really to be about POV concerns. I think the solution there is to add further information to present a balanced, neutral POV, not delete the article. GoldenRing (talk) 13:48, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but exactly how are you refuting any point? You're just saying "I don't understand the deletion request". That's fine, if you don't then just don't post here. Zozs (talk) 19:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you cared to read beyond the first few words of what I said, then you would have found that use of the term is not widespread in the secondary literature but it's there. The article itself is well-sourced. You're not listening and it's verging on disruption. GoldenRing (talk) 09:21, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disruption? Anybody can accuse someone else of disruption. Another cheap cop-out and non-argument. If there's anyone here who isn't listening or failing to get the point it's you. Yes, the article is well-sourced, that's something I acknowledged from the start, do you even read? "It's there"? No, the term "Bolivarian propaganda" or any similar terms do not actually exist in any research, publication, or whatever. Like others said the subject cannot be truly called notable, the article is just made from connecting up sources. Zozs (talk) 19:07, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article was just agreed to be kept a few edits prior to this second nomination for deletion. Substantial changes were made during the first nomination and more can be made.--Zfigueroa (talk) 16:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter. Just because the first AfD didn't deal with the actual issues of the page doesn't make the page good. Zozs (talk) 19:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Unlike other countries, Venezuela has long crossed the treshold between mere political campaign and outright propaganda. See Propaganda#Specific techniques: Ad hominem, ad nauseam, appeal to authority, appeal to fear, appeal to prejudice, bandwagon, inevitable victory, join the crowd, the lie, blac-and-white fallacy, selective truth, common man, cult of personality, demonizing the enemy, disinformation... if we go though the whole list, we'll find that the Chavista regime uses the vast majority of propaganda techniques. And so, call a spade a spade. Nobody ever said that propaganda was something that can only be found in nazi germany or in soviet russia. After all, in other countries you watch Big Brother, but in Chavista Venezuela, Big Brother watches you! Cambalachero (talk) 18:13, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So what? That is only your irrelevant opinion. You're not understanding the issue at hand that is that the only article this article can exist is through violations of WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and notability guidelines. Zozs (talk) 19:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The fact, that you people must understand, is that while there may be "institutionalized propaganda", in your opinion, there is no study, research, or publication which systematically deals with this "propaganda" (which a non-biased user may simply call a normal political campaign), other than passing mentions of "propaganda" in news items about Venezuela. The article, no matter how well sourced it is, is simply a massive violation of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Additionally, the article takes the form of an article attacking the Chavista political campaign. The article contains random criticisms of the government which have only a very weak relationship of the topic and copypastes of random lines from articles criticising the government, which are used in an original research WP:SYNTH manner to say whoever made the Wikipedia article wants to say. Zozs (talk) 19:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are not many researchs or books about the Chavista regime because, unlike nazi germany or soviet russia, it is still a modern government, still located in the newspapers rather than in the history books. It is still ongoing, and we do not know yet how will it end and what will come after it. Historians always prefer to work with historical periods wich are finished, so that their work do not get outdated in a few months. But, as Wikipedia is not printed, it does not have the same problem. It is acceptable to work with modern things that most historians do not work with just yet, and reliable newspapers are accepted as sources even if the subject lacks actual academic studies. Cambalachero (talk) 22:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it is, the problem is that there are not many newspaper articles which have really focused on this, rather this article just references random lines (violation of WP:SYNTH) from articles about Venezuela which are somewhat related to the topic. Original research is not allowed in Wikipedia. I suggest that you view the article, review Wikipedia policies once again, and re-consider your decision. Additionally, the notability of the subject matter itself is not established, as said by others. Zozs (talk) 22:48, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Delete for the reasons laid out by Zozs. The article is mainly a collection of loosely related snippets of information, most of which could probably be more effectively integrated into other articles (the education section into Education in Venezuela, for example.) The title term is obscure, and although the article has a decent number of sources, the sources fail to establish the notability of the title subject. --4idaho (talk) 19:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve: First of all I wish to highlight the WP:N of the article: There is no doubt that Chávez and his successor Maduro governments have marked a significant period in Venezuelan history. Chávez has created a great popular support, especially from the lower class persons, and most of this support was created by the way president Chávez communicated his charisma and used the media to his advantage. I consider that the article has good content but also a WP:POV issue, which can be solved with further editing and contribution, not a WP:OR or WP:SYNTH violation which seems to have been talked about in the previous discussion: if the WP:POV is a problem more references should be included to turn the article more neutral. For example, its introduction could be more descriptive, and the other sections could explain the ideology of the propaganda or the ways it is featured. For example, the first paragraph of the background section currently explains the Bolivarian Revolution concept, but then criticizes the government through several sources, while it could explain more about the effects of the Bolivarian Revolution in the Venezuelan ideology. The term "propaganda" can usually be misinterpreted to have a negative connotation and as a synonym, for example, of "indoctrination". If the title of the article is the problem it should be renamed with a more appropriate title, and if there's information that would be better in another article some of its content could be merged with them. I don't know if some things that I said would be better in the article's talk page, but this is my opinion. The article should not be deleted, and the article's most notable contributor, SandyGeorgia, should be informed about the deletion request. --Jamez42 (talk) 22:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have not explained how the subject matter is notable in its own right and not by extension (although Chavez is), the only thing which could grant it "notability" is the random mention of "propaganda" in a few articles about Venezuela. Additionally, you have not explained how it is not an OR or SYNTH violation. And there is systematical POV because of the nature of the article. Zozs (talk) 23:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Zozs: In short I'd say that the most important aspect of the article is the effect of the ideology in the people and not the propaganda itself. However, as I mentioned before, the methods of how the propaganda is featured could be described (billboards, wall paintings, toys, books, etc.). I also consider is not an OR or SYNTH because the content of the article can be sourced properly while fixing the POV issue. --Jamez42 (talk) 00:08, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any research, source or article on "the effect on the people"? Is there any research on the "propaganda"? How would you source, in such a manner that it is not "SYNTH"? It is my opinion that this is impossible. Zozs (talk) 00:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Zozs: The effect on the people I'm referring to is mostly that of the Bolivarian ideology and Chávez presidency, which can be expressed in the huge support he received, the demonstrations in favor of his government and, giving an example of a research, poll regarding their opinion towards Chávez. The ways of expressing the propaganda can be cited referencing the political campaigns carried out (during an electoral period, for example) or urban paintings supporting Chávez or being against the United States government, like the one that is shown in the article. If I happen to find this kind of "propaganda" or paintings I would be glad to take pictures of them. --Jamez42 (talk) 00:32, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So basically, there is no research about that "propaganda" and this can be done only through original research. Articles about the political campaigns can exist, but this article is just a mess and intended as an attack. There is nothing into it which is worth saving. Zozs (talk) 00:42, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Zozs: The detail is explaining exactly what do you mean with "propaganda". Putting the political campaigns apart and thinking about what the article says, "messages and pictures used to influence the behaviors and opinions of the Venezuelan people and promote Hugo Chávez's version of a 21st-century Bolivarian Revolution", then we would be facing the political bias dilemma. The most recent expression of this "Bolivarian Propaganda" would be the resolution 58 and the new government curriculum, which has been accused of several times to be politically biased due to its content, and could be named as a propaganda precisely for being messages that can change the subject's opinion. I think that the article can reach a neutral point of view by not seeing this messages or pictures under a negative light, but as an effort to gain support from citizens, just like in a political campaign the candidates are looking for people to vote for them. --Jamez42 (talk) 00:55, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, making a "Bolivarian propaganda" article based on using bits from here and there would constitute original research, which is a point that you are not refuting. The resolution 58 information fits on the Education in Venezuela article. Zozs (talk) 02:22, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Zozs: I still consider that these messages and pictures still fall into the term of "propaganda" because of their influence (or their attempt) towards individuals. Chávez has been a very influential person, to the point that some persons even consider him now as a saint, and during his government there was (and still is) a lot of propaganda about him. Something as simple as a soda advertisement can be considered as propaganda because of the influence it has on people, and there's nothing wrong about it, it depends on the way you see it or it is expressed, and that is part of the POV issue. At least that's the way I see it and why I think this article shouldn't be deleted. I think it could be renamed, merged or cleaned up, but not everything in it is an attack on the government. --Jamez42 (talk) 02:41, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Apropósito, si quieres podemos hablar en español cuando la situación lo permita en vista de que es el idioma natal de ambos.) --Jamez42 (talk) 02:42, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Original research, original research, original research. Not only is everything you are mentioning original research, you are ignoring the fact that the problem of this article is that nearly 100% of content is original research. I prefer to talk in English so that everyone can understand, as this is a public discussion. Zozs (talk) 02:51, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Zozs: The issues that the article has can still be fixed, and that's why I'm voting for it to be that way. The political campaigns, the education, the paintings, they all can be included in this article to talk about a common subject. I rather to speak in English during this conversation meanwhile, I'm just suggesting it for any other time. --Jamez42 (talk) 03:07, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve: While I believe the main problem with this article is the WP:POV, which is too obviously biased too ignore - yet that doesn't mean it needs to be removed, it just needs to be worked. I this the issue at hand is an important part of the Venezuelan society, and as such, shouldn't be ignored. It just needs to be better sourced and have some instances rewritten so that it doesn't violate the WP:SYNTH and have a neutral point of view. --yeah_93 (talk) 03:22, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So I just did a search of Wikipedia articles with "propaganda" in the title. These are the instances when it referred to a state (click "show"):

List of Wikipedia articles with "Propaganda" in the title when referring to a state

Nazi propaganda (article refers to single-party state)
Propaganda in the Soviet Union (article refers to single-party state)
Propaganda in the People's Republic of China (article refers to single-party state)
Propaganda in the United States
Propaganda in the Polish People's Republic (article refers to single-party state)
Propaganda in Iran
Taliban propaganda (article refers to fundamentalist group)
Propaganda in the Republic of China
Cuban revolutionary propaganda (article refers to single-party state)

Propaganda in South Korea (article refers to propaganda as part of the "ongoing" war vs. North Korea)

As you can see this kind of article (this is a KIND of article, it is not only the fact that the word "propaganda" is used in the title, it is the whole type of article which this is part of) is used only with extreme cases like the propaganda of a single-party state and only when there is well available documentation and research on the subject, NOT like this article, which is just arbitrary bits from news articles used as a reference to produce an article which fits the author's opinion. You people need to understand that with the current state of available sources, it is impossible to do an article like this without violating original research guidelines. It is not only that it is currently violating original research policy, it is that it simply cannot exist until any research or documentation becomes available on this topic. Zozs (talk) 03:44, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Single-party state as in being the most dominate party in a nation for almost two decades? I mean Chavez's party in Venezuela has changed names but they've always remained loyal to Chavez for 15 years now. That is the same amount of time that the Nazi party was becoming the most dominant party in Germany (1930-1945). So it is not too far fetched to call Venezuela a single-party state. But that is just my opinion Zozs. Just like it is your opinion for wanting to delete this article.--Zfigueroa (talk) 05:23, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Single-party state is obviously a state where all other parties are inexistent, because it is a dictatorship. The thing is that most of you saying "Keep" are not making any arguments, just displaying your biased point of view. "Chavez is evil", "Chavez is evil", "Chavez is evil". That's all the arguments you guys have for "Keeping" this. Now you're comparing Venezuela to Nazi Germany. The thing is that everyone is free to post his opinion there, but he must make it from arguments which relate to Wikipedia policy, not from one's own personal view of the subject, which is what all the "keepers" are doing here. Zozs (talk) 13:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zos, you brought the nazis into the discussion yourself, in the opening of this discussion. No, there is no point of comparison between Chavismo and Nazism as a whole, because Chavismo is not attempting or calling for any Holocaust, and thus does not deserve the universal rejection that Nazism deserves. Having said that, Zfigueroa's point is not about that: it's that, if we seek international well known examples of governments attempting a similar type of government, limiting civic freedoms and using all media to praise the glorious leader and say the most horrible things about the domestic or international opposition, then yes, nazism is one of the first examples that comes to mind. Cambalachero (talk) 14:24, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. I'm not saying that anyone is evil. I am just saying there are similarities in some cases. I used my opinion just for the Nazi case too. Even what you provide Zozs is your opinion. But the major consensus here is that the article is a Keep and we just want to improve upon it. Of course there are some problems with the article, it is about a controversial subject and is still occurring at the moment. It isn't a situation that has been happening for long enough to have the extravagant research you demand Zozs. There are plenty of books out there about this topic and they just need to be used to improve upon this article. Also, most of the propaganda sources you provided have been long established for over 50 years. That gives people plenty of time to research what has happened in effected areas. Chavez's propaganda has primarily happened in the past decade and is still developing (as you can see from new content being placed in the article). We all know that Bolivarian propaganda does occur and not only in Venezuela. It has happened at a regional and international level. I have seen images in places like Cuba and Bolivia. The Wikileaks sources also explains how wherever Chavez went, his Bolivarian ideas followed.--Zfigueroa (talk) 15:10, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Both your latest posts are still only based on personal opinion. The thing is that you are free to give your opinion here, but it must be in regard to the article and Wikipedia policy. Your arguments are based on: "But the Venezuelan government is authoritarian!", which is merely a completely personal opinion, which does not belong in any AfD discussion. When I gave the example of "Nazi Propaganda", it was not any comparison of the Venezuelan and Nazi governments but simply discussion about how articles on the topic of "[x] Propaganda" are used on Wikipedia. You argued that Venezuela is a "single-party state" (personal opinion), and you guys argued that there is "much use of propaganda there", which is still just personal opinions and not backed by research. Zozs (talk) 19:55, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one making such statements Zozs. No one ever called the government authoritarian or said Chavez is evil. None of us said that. What the majority of users here want is an improved article, yet YOU dispute each of their decisions. If you look at your edits on the article, you removed things YOU thought were not good even though most were properly sourced and you did not provide sources to back your edits. YOU are the one who also pasted dubious tags everywhere since according to YOUR opinion, you did not find certain things reliable. You need to realize that you are one of the most opinionated users commenting in this discussion. You have also reverted many of my edits before calling them "propaganda" when I was able to provide even more sources. All edits I made to any article were not my opinion but the research of the sources I used. I just want to make that clear. Again, I use only sources. So please stop accusing others of being opinionated.--Zfigueroa (talk) 22:16, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that both of you are claiming that the article should be kept because "widespread propaganda in Venezuela exists", yet that is your personal opinion, as the subject matter has neither been proven to be notable nor backed by research acceptable by Wikipedia. If you brought that non-original research, then your argument would be actually valid, but that research is not coming. If such propaganda exists, then improve the article so that it is something other than a massive violation of WP:SYNTH with a bit from here of this news article, a bit from there of that news article to make it say exactly what the involved Wikipedia editors want it to say. Now, the current version of the article is only suitable for deletion. Zozs (talk) 22:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is why the users here want to keep the article. This article hasn't been edited for almost 2 years since I began editing. Many things have changed in the past 2 years for Venezuela.--Zfigueroa (talk) 00:16, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence has been presented that the topic is notable, and there are no sources used in the article that specifically discuss the topic. In rhetorical speech, the word "propaganda" is frequently added to the name of any political group - Communist propaganda, Yankee propaganda, right-wing propaganda, feminist propaganda, etc. We should not find every noun in the dictionary then apply every possible adjective and generate as many articles as possible. TFD (talk) 16:09, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While the term "Bolivarian propaganda" may return few hits, the Venezuelan propaganda phenom is notable; Bolivarian refers to the last few decades of Venezuelan history, during the Chavez/Maduro years, where the propaganda issues have differed from historical issues. Notability for recent Venezuelan propaganda issues is not hard to establish; have a look, for example, at what is going on in Venezuelan schools, where a Cuban curriculum is mandated.
How Maduro is interfering in Venezuela’s schools ... However, their main concern is that the new regulation takes power away from parents and school authorities, and opens the door for political actors to use schools as places for propaganda. Experts agree, pointing to the slanted nature of some of the textbooks currently being distributed. They point, for example, to an illustrated copy of the constitution that is being sent to many schools in which Hugo Chávez himself is portrayed as a quasi-religious figure along with Simon Bolívar. The pictures show Chávez teaching children and Nicolás Maduro standing next to the actual text of the constitution ...
There are many other examples ... the spin around the "coup" of 2002, the notion that the US was involved, etc.' and the article should be/could be expanded to cover more of them. The now defunct Venezuela Information Office was a key part of the campaign in earlier years, and their are still other quasi-official mouthpieces for the government that could be covered. What has happened in the movie industry is another example to be covered. This is a question of using the best search terms and knowing where to look. Is "Bolivarian" the best term to use in the article name? Well, is it right to name the article "Venezuelan propaganda", when this phenom is occurring only since the "Bolivarian Revolution"? Are there examples of Venezuelan propaganda pre-Chavez? Or is it better to call the article "Venezuelan propaganda since 1998"? Propaganda in Venezuela would not be an adequate title, as the campaign is international. Venezuelan propaganda ? Whatever the title is, the phenom occurring since the "Bolivarian revolution" is real and distinct. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:27, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's your personal opinion not backed by sources. Some random opinion article on an unknown web news site saying Chavez is a "quasi-religious figure", yeah, that's a joke. You fail to establish the notability of the subject matter, and do not address the issue of the article being based on the whole on original research. Zozs (talk) 19:35, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It appears from reading the article, and the sources already there, that my "personal opinion" is backed by a large number of reliable sources. Renaming the article to Chavez/Maduro propaganda doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but I'm open to other suggestions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:54, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These sources aren't research or publications on "Bolivarian propaganda". They're simply hand-picked publications which are not research about "Bolivarian propaganda" but simply contain criticism of the government, and are used to push original research and a POV. Zozs (talk) 19:11, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, I read an article on The Huffington Post (definitely not an "unknown web news site") that describes that supposed issue. --yeah_93 (talk) 21:06, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Godwin's law. Bearian (talk) 22:28, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is Zozs' personal nomination for deletion

Zozs, it seems that you are the only one who continuously pushes to have this article deleted. You think your opinion is greater than 7 other users and refuse to take down the nomination for deletion. I know that some other users have asked for the deletion, but the majority has spoken and it has been a week now. Throughout this nomination page you have accused others of only using their opinion when the whole reason the article was nominated and is still being nominated is because of your personal opinion. This nomination is no longer due to Wikipedia's standards but due to Zozs' personal opinion and needs to be dealt with promptly.--Zfigueroa (talk) 23:20, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:40, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rocco Perrotta

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

Looks like this person does not fit the sports bio-never played a game-just a fitness coach. Wgolf (talk) 01:07, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. As a player, he fails WP:NSPORT having never played in a fully pro league. He also fails WP:GNG having not received significant coverage either as a player or a fitness trainer. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:34, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG (no significant coverage) and WP:NFOOTBALL (has not played or managed in a fully-professional league. Being a fitness coach in one is not sufficient. Giant Snowman 17:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Player has not played / trained in fully professional league, nor played senior international football, so fails NFOOTY. No indication of any other achievements garnering significant reliable coverage to achieve GNG. Fenix down (talk) 12:06, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete housekeeping non-admin closure: 00:11, 1 May 2014 DGG (talk | contribs) deleted page Ryan Dizon (G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page) czar ♔ 02:41, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Dizon

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

Doesn't appear to satisfy the WP:GNG guideline.Cannot A7 as it asserts notability. Only has 2 thousands subscribers on Youtube. Uses primarily Youtube sources. Doesn't appear to have reached any significant news coverage. Tutelary (talk) 00:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacks non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 00:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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