Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 March 24

< 23 March 25 March >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. → Call me Hahc21 05:35, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Ayers

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

Non-notable minor league baseball pitcher; no exceptional third-party sources to pass GNG. Wizardman 00:00, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 25 March 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 Snow close. I'm going to close this one early, as there is no coverage out there that is independent of the subject and in a reliable place to show that this passes WP:NBOOK. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:11, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Remaining, Part One

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

Self published book released two days ago. No indication of notability per WP:NBOOK. I am unable to find significant discussion of the book in reliable independent sources. ... discospinster talk 23:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some references of the book:

  • http://www.amazon.com/The-Remaining-Part-Corey-Webb/dp/1497378869/
  • http://www.amazon.com/Remaining-Part-One-Corey-Webb-ebook/dp/B00J6HIK00/
  • https://www.createspace.com/4720540
  • http://theremainingpartone.weebly.com/

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Idts (talk • contribs) 23:45, 24 March 2014‎

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Sing 23:45, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete failed to find WP:42 to meet WP:NBOOK. Sam Sailor Sing 23:48, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete would appear to fail WP:BOOK. Although not terribly shocking for a self-published book, Twilight notwithstanding. None of the authors references listed above come close to establishing notability. -- Bfigura (talk) 00:47, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I could find no coverage to demonstrate that this meets WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK.  Gong show 03:56, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Numerically, this is pretty close. Snottywong's tool comes up with 41 delete, 37 keep. My manual count was close to that. There's a big friendly warning box that hints at vote stuffing, but interestingly enough, the tool's list of potential SPAs is also split quite evenly.

But, of course, we all know this isn't vote counting. The real deal here is that we're looking for rough consensus. Some approximation to, "Most people are generally in agreement, even if there's a few dissidents", and I don't see that. Reasonable arguments were made on both sides, so there's no magic, "I'm going to discount half of one side" brush I can use to synthesize a consensus.

-- RoySmith (talk) 00:26, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 conspiracy theories

Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 conspiracy theories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notoriety Snood1205 (talk) 22:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Conspiracy theories are very interesting and intriguing. This plane has been missing for almost a month now and it would really deserve its own conspiracy page. I found most of the theories very compelling - it will be waste deleting the page. And merging the page with the main article is not a good idea as that article is FULL already. Please keep it. Meganesia (talk) 13:30, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Those advocating deletion need to explain why this article is any more worthy of deletion than the John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories page and the 9/11 conpiracy theories pages. Too many opinionated and self-important editors trampling on the hard work of others. BlueSkyMining (talk) 20:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to main article- May I begin by first questioning, what are your grounds for deletion? You have nominated this article, but you have not described as to what criteria it would meet in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. Nonetheless, having examined the article it seems that it consists of largely unencyclopedic content with a few somewhat bizarre theories banded together from web related sources. On the other hand, conspiracy theories surrounding this are going to receive large coverage due to the unexplained course of events and the then inconclusive ending of it all. Therefore, I recommend it is merged into the main article on the topic. Thanks. TF92 (talk) 23:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice towards recreation at a later date This articles exists only because of the highly unusual nature of the incident, a large commercial flight disappearing without a trace (so it is not comparable with other "Flight X conspiracy" article, which would be wp:otherstuff anyway). This created the flurry of "theories". As things have become a bit clearer, with the plane having run out of fuel over the Southern Ocean, most if not all the "theories" in the article have been superseded. If no wreck/black box is recovered, it is possible it might become a mystery in the future, à la Emily Hearart. However, we are not there yet, and having such an article in anticipation of such a phenomenon would be wp:crystal. walk victor falk talk 20:19, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Think you mean this Emily. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:37, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep Nominator gave no rationale to delete, and the new article is notable given the media coverage of the event. ScienceApe (talk) 00:08, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ..."it consists of largely unencyclopedic content with a few somewhat bizarre theories banded together from web related sources." Exactly. Conspiracy theorists have their own sites in plenty. Shouldn't Wikipedia be factual? --Ampwright (talk) 00:34, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See my keep vote below. We have articles about conspiracy theories in other high-profile air crashes. This is is not per se non-notable. Daniel Case (talk) 01:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to main article – This topic merits a sentence or so of mention in the main article. It certainly does not merit its own independent article. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:40, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, see below. We do have separate articles on exactly this sort of thing for other crashes. Daniel Case (talk) 01:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand that. I am simply saying that this does not warrant its own separate article. It can be summed up into a sentence or so (perhaps a paragraph) and inserted into the main article. It could be a (small) sub-section there. That was the point I was trying to make. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You said "topic"; I was pointing out that the existence of other articles means this sort of sui generis argument isn't enough by itself to support a deletion, because that's what I thought you meant. My feeling is, since it will likely grow into something big enough for its own article, we should just leave it where it is (and it's already big enough, I think). Daniel Case (talk) 05:45, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I used the word "topic" – perhaps not 100% the best choice of words. Maybe "information" is a better word choice. That notwithstanding, I clearly was not advocating deletion. My post is clearly marked as Merge to main article. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not encyclopedic, and now obsolete anyway. --Lasunncty (talk) 00:51, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is encyclopedic. The fact that some of the conspiracy theories given are not does not scale to an argument for deletion of the entire article. Daniel Case (talk) 01:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — At least two of the "theories" are not sourced, and appear to be WP:OR ("Meteor strike" & "Wormhole")  ~Eric:71.20.250.51 (talk) 00:56, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, that means you delete them from the article, not vote to delete the article. Daniel Case (talk) 02:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's why this was a "comment" and not a "delete". The article is locked from editing by IPs (see my entry on talk page). IP=71.20.250.51 (talk) 18:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC) (a.k.a: ~Eric)[reply]
  • Strong delete - I agree with Lasunncty, this is hardly worthy of Wikipedia, mostly not theories with a rational basis, and NOT encyclopedic. I never vote to delete because I don't like the Notability policy. My reasons for voting for this deletion have nothing to do with Notability, though. The fact that I am !voting to delete this article, for the first time I have voted for a deletion, should show how strongly I feel about it. Juneau Mike (talk) 01:00, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, see the links I posted below to other articles about air crash conspiracy theories. Methinks you confuse "shouldn't be encyclopedic" with "unencyclopedic." Daniel Case (talk) 02:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Although some of the theories have source provided, but the source itself doesn't provided reliable evidence for their theory. This topic looks more like hoax rather than fact and the article nature also not a disscussion of hoax. Doesn't seems to be appropriate to merge to main article as well. Tan pang (talk) 01:09, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Although some of the theories have source provided, but the source itself doesn't provided reliable evidence for their theory." Our editorial policies do not apply to the documents we use as sources, as long as we've decided they're reliable, and some undeniably reliable sources are indeed among the citations, such as CNN, The Washington Post, etc. Daniel Case (talk) 02:05, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete At least two examples of OR, such as the Wormhole theory and Meteor strike. Was leaning towards having a sentence in main article about how the missing issue spawned conspiracy theories, but not sure I would even support that at this point.--MONGO 01:27, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said, then be bold and delete those theories from the article (they're unsourced, they won't bite you), instead of arguing for deletion of the entire article. Daniel Case (talk) 02:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Conspiracies "dismissed as absurd by the mainstream media" seems to blatantly imply the use of unreliable sources, and "This page describes all such" is a fairly obvious example of POV pushing to make this a repository of whatever conspiracy theories exist with no regard to veracity. 8ty3hree (talk) 01:44, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That can be addressed by a really arcane, difficult procedure. It involves opening up the edit window and ... rewriting the suspect prose. I know it's harder than voting delete, but it's not impossible (hey, it's definitely easier than finding this plane has turned out to be ). Daniel Case (talk) 02:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My main issue was a tabloid article basing itself on YouTube comments. The article seems better and somewhat less randomly thrown together, so I redact my delete opinion.
My points about the former article text still stand as it is representative of the whole former article and the haphazard way in which the more absurd theories were compiled. 8ty3hree (talk) 23:24, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC. And my keep vote below. Daniel Case (talk) 02:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The longer the wreckage remains missing, the more ludicrous and numerous these theories will become. Even at present, the press are helpfully reporting plenty of working hypotheses, but no conspiracy is holding sway to any degree, so it's difficult to argue for inclusion for reasons of notability or due weight for any of them. -- Ohc ¡digame! 06:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It adds nothing to the subject, and is likely to attract even more bizarre, unsourced, unreliable speculation. Maybe they were trying to reach the Nazi Antarctic UFO base? Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 02:03, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And your !vote adds nothing to this discussion, either. As for the rest of your argument (the part I assume you meant seriously, anyway), see WP:SUSCEPTIBLE. Daniel Case (talk) 02:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Having revisited the article today, I see that it is now more balanced. I still believe it could encourage speculation, however, I wish to remove my delete comment (it's not a vote), so I've struck out my entry above. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 14:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per reasons given by others above--Witan (talk) 02:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Refer to my responses to reasons given by others above. Daniel Case (talk) 02:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I do think that we could make a mention of the various theories in the main article in a 1-2 line sentence, but this article is primarily original research. The difference between this article and similarly themed articles such as 9/11 conspiracy theories is that so far the MAF370 RS are fairly few and far between whereas the 9/11 theories have multiple, multiple sources in books, news outlets, and the like. There might be some justification for a full article in the future, but right now this is just far WP:TOOSOON for its own entry. I'd close this early myself, but I would like to see a bit more consensus- although I do think that this will likely be snow closed early as a delete unless someone can pull a Hail Mary out of their hat. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:23, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy as well. This will likely gain more coverage in the future, so userfying a copy to incubate and add on to will probably be a good idea. If/when (and I'm betting it's when rather than if) there is more coverage, we can always un-userfy the article and recreate it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:39, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We could bring it up to something closer to the quality of the other conspiracy theory articles by, as I've said, actually editing it with an eye towards strict compliance with our editorial policies. This would save us the trouble of deleting and recreating, or moving to userspace and then back. Daniel Case (talk) 02:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we can bring it up "to code" and if this continues to get coverage, I have no true issue with keeping it. My biggest issue is that this is all a little recent and I'd like to have some sort of enduring coverage. I do think it's something that will, so I have no problem with cleaning it and redirecting it with history. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We don't need to give any recognition to loopy crackpot ideas. WWGB (talk) 03:24, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To advocate for the deletion of an article that otherwise covers a notable subject similar to others we have written articles on because you have some negative opinion about whether that subject should even exist is un-Wikipedian. Daniel Case (talk) 02:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The thing to remember here is that the theories don't have to make sense. What we need is a lot of coverage to show that this is something other than just something that the media is picking up on because news about the plane crash is slow. I'm not saying that some of the theories out there aren't silly, but that doesn't mean that they can't receive enough coverage in the future. Right now it's just that the coverage isn't in-depth enough. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unencyclopedic and WP:FRINGE material, that hasn't received anything close to WP:SIGCOV. ansh666 03:53, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC, again, plus note some of the sources cited. Daniel Case (talk) 02:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've noted which parts of WP:NOT I believe that it's falling afoul of below; I looked at the sources and don't believe that they're sufficient. ansh666 02:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Most, if not all, of the delete voters thus far are missing the point! This article is not attempting to describe the reason why the aircraft went down. This article is documenting the existence of conspiracy theories about why the aircraft went down. All the information in the article -- i.e., reports of people espousing these theories -- is verifiable, because the theories really have, or have not, been proposed by various people as documented by the supporting links. (If they have not, then those particular theories should be removed.) The article is not attempting to claim that the theories themselves are factual explanations of what happened to the flight. The article is akin to the article on Moon Landing Conspiracy Theories (Apollo_hoax). The current phenomenon is newsworthy, and conspiracy theories will no doubt continue to proliferate, since the official explanation announced today will no doubt be seen as inadequate and/or untrustworthy by many, given the circumstances well documented in the main article. These facts about contemporary culture have nothing whatsoever to do with whether any of these conspiracy theories are correct!! Now that we've hopefully cleared up that misunderstanding, then of course any undocumented rumors of conspiracy theories should of course be removed (i.e., if any of the links prove not to support the claim that the alleged theories have been reported). In addition, the question of whether to merge the content into the main article remains an open one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.61.187.71 (talk) 03:59, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
— 173.61.187.71 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 04:02, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
+1 Really sad when an IP understands Wikipedia policy better than longtime contributors. Daniel Case (talk) 02:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@173.61.187.71: Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. Just because there are plenty of sources describing conspiracy theories does not mean that there should be an article on them. The reason the Moon landing and JFK assassination theories pages exist is because the mainstream account and the conspiracy theories are all well established and documented. At this point, with so little information and evidence about what even happened to the flight, the article at best is just a pointless enumeration of various speculations. Even conspiracy theories try to use some semblance of evidence. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 15:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fenix, I think you miss an important point in your argument about why the JFK Assassination and Fake Moon Landing conspiracy theories are ok, but this here isn't. There's an article on fake moon landing conspiracies. Why? Because that topic is SO notable, stand-alone, and sourced, it's like not funny. Yet many people (including high-level politicians) call that view or topic "fringe". Doesn't matter. It's notable enough. And so (at this point) is this Malaysian crashed airplane and theories that've been put forth regarding it. It's arguably big enough, and definitely sourced more than enough, and meets the criteria. Regardless of personal feelings or "I don't like" reasons or notions against it. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 04:38, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, those conspiracy theories are regarded as fringe by many people, but there is a fundamental difference between those conspiracy theories and these conspiracy theories. The 9/11 truthers, for example, have a sizable amount of literature, documentaries, etc supporting their claims, and secondary sources documenting their views and activities. The problem with MH370 conspiracy theories is that they are literally speculations from various people reported on news sites to attract views. It's almost a violation of WP:PRIMARY. There is no substantial MH370 conspiracy literature and therefore there are no reliable secondary sources that document and analyze them. I don't like Moon landing, climate deniers, etc either, but there is a very good reason those articles exist that this article does not have. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 15:32, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you're saying about "more substantial", I get that, and I don't even totally disagree (in a way), but here's a very important point that you and others who are so with "delete" keep missing. Ok, ready? Here it goes. It's NOT the specific theories or views that are the issue or the determination for this article's existence, but rather THAT THERE ARE MANY THEORIES, VIEWS, NOTIONS, AND SPECULATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN GOING ON. Not the views themselves, which I would agree in many cases are borderline wacky or silly. NOT THE ISSUE OR THE POINT!!! It's the PHENOMENON that is what is notable...not the individual theories in question. (Forgive the caps, they were not necessarily meant as yelling but as special emphasis.) But seriously, do you finally get it now? Yes, there's a flow and flux in this particular matter, etc, but that does NOT negate the (sourced) fact that the matter (of theories and speculations and fears etc) have been going ON! The specific ones are not that relevant to the actual point. And it's become obvious that many editors on here, who are so strong for "delete", are getting matters a little confused. At least to some extent. The PHENOMENON is what is notable, not necessarily each individual theory put forth IN the phenomenon. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 02:54, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Gabby, you say, but here's a very important point that you and others who are so with "delete" keep missing but actually, they're not missing your point, and shouting won't help you. They get it--there really are many theories that have been going on--that's your point, and they get it that it's the phenomenon, not necessarily each individual theory, where by "phenomenon" you mean, roughly, "crazy theories about this abound, regardless whether I support them". Now, here's what you don't get: Wikipedia works on various principles and guidelines, one of which is Notability. Note the very first sentence after the ToC at WP:NOTE:

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 or list.

So, if your topic is 370 conspiracy theories, to establish notability, you might start by finding reliable sources that refer to a list of conspiracy theories such as the ones listed in the article. If you can't find such sources, then the article looks suspiciously like Original Research something that is not a valid basis for a WP article. Mathglot (talk) 02:09, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Going in circles now, and it's tiring, and it's a merry-go-round. No, you and the others DON'T get it, period. The individual theories or conjectures are not necessarily so notable...but the overall situation and phenomenon (that of various speculations and conjectures) is clearly notable and very sourced. Mathglot...the situation is what is clearly notable...not necessarily each speculation in the situation....simple point. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 05:10, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the same reasons as Ansh above. Crazy people make crazy claims about every single disaster, but they're almost all extremely quickly forgotten. They just aren't notable enough. Titanium Dragon (talk) 04:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I pointed out below, we have similar articles about conspiracy theories related to other aviation incidents. They were hardly "extremely quickly forgotten". Daniel Case (talk) 02:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As article creator I'm not going to try to stave off deletion of my own article (or at least one where I wrote almost all the content). However, I will ask why this is not notable when the page on Sandy Hook conspiracy theories is. IOW there are not only reliable sources in this article now, there are others that aren't. [1] [2] Just keep this in mind, closing admin (since presumably no one else will have their minds changed after having voted). Jinkinson talk to me 04:43, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of it just boils down into how much coverage something has received. So far the coverage for this is fairly light, all things considering. It may eventually gain more coverage and merit an article. In fact, I'm actually figuring that it will. Conspiracy theory is fairly big business nowadays, as news outlets realize that they can get people to click on the links, even if it's just to laugh at what's being said, and mainstream publishers realize that people will buy books about conspiracy theories for the same reason. However we have to look at the here and now to decide whether or not there's a depth of coverage. I think it's basically just WP:TOOSOON for an article. I'd recommend userfying it for the time being and re-adding it later on when there's more coverage. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:39, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak argument, just parroting points made above, to which I refer the honorable gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago. Daniel Case (talk) 02:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (judiciously) into main article — The frantic generation of conspiracy theories is interesting as a social phenomenon. The phantom mobile phone theory is poignant as it underscores the uncertainty faced by relatives of the victims. I wouldn't advocate merging the full list of loony theories (and how about the flying spaghetti monster, huh?) into the main article, but I think that some of the material on this page can be placed into its own section within the main article. This material makes for a weak standalone article (as it currently stands) and yet, frankly, I see no reason why it ought to be expanded into a more robust article.
    — Wlgrin 06:40, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We have standalone articles on conspiracy theories related to at least three other high-profile air disasters, as I note below. Daniel Case (talk) 02:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - These sources are semi-serious at best. Consider the first few sentences of the Independent article: "Ask YouTube commenters for the explanation behind Malaysia Airlines flight MH370's disappearance (actually don't, that's a terrible idea) and they'll tell you it can be traced back to Pitbull and Shakira's 2012 track "Get It Started". The 'Illuminati' briefly got a break from being in the frame for the world's mysteries, with people drawing comparisons between the club banger's lyrics and details of the plane's tragic disappearance." The boston.com article is headlined "9 crazy conspiracy theories about Malaysia Airlines flight 370". This stuff is basically linkbait: lazy writers regurgitating anonymous social networking posts or broadcasters who know absolutely nothing but need to fill air time and/or want attention. It's all unencyclopedic drivel. If there's anything that has lasting significance it can be covered in the main article.GabrielF (talk) 06:52, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing that matters about how our sources cover the subjects of articles is whether they do so trivially or not. I think those sources are decidedly taking the latter approach. Daniel Case (talk) 02:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Move to discount this vote as utterly unserious. Daniel Case (talk) 02:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete At this point I don't think there's enough actual encyclopedic content for a stand-alone article. Anything worth keeping can be merged.LM2000 (talk) 08:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think there will be, even if you delete most of the unsourced crap. Daniel Case (talk) 02:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Must be assigned to the urban legends category. Audriusa (talk) 08:56, 25 March 2014 (UTC). Urban legends must also be notable, but now many vote to delete just because the article is about urban legends. Audriusa (talk) 10:04, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unencyclopedic content. One or two theories can possibly be merged into the main article, but as a whole this article is rubbish. Johnnyjanko (talk) 12:09, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC, as noted. Daniel Case (talk) 02:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This article has some reliable sources, enough to be kept. Eventually there will be more, as people write books and stuff like that. None of your "nots" are valid deletion arguments since this is written like an encylopedia article. Daniel Case (talk) 02:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Daniel Case: (response to a lot of comments of yours; I also replied to your own !vote below) That this is "written like an encyclopedia article" has no bearing on the content - which is what WP:NOT is all about. As far as sources in this article, they are either now WP:RSes, give passing mention to conspiracy theories, or fall under the second category in WP:NEWSORG ("Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces"), especially this sentence: "The reporting of rumors has a limited encyclopedic value, although in some instances verifiable information about rumors may be appropriate. Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors." Also note that, as some have stated, this is a kind of clickbait from news orgs desperate on viewership (just look at CNN's ridiculous reporting - I often joke that the only people with a clear motive to hijack MH370 is CNN); IIRC, news reports, even the "News reporting" that WP:NEWSORG describes as reliable, are often considered not reliable if they are from something like silly season. Finally, remember that there is no deadline - no need to put out an article like this with so many flaws in it. We can afford to wait to see if some theories persist and reliable sources are published, then recreate the article in the form of the others you mention below. ansh666 03:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should consider reading NOTTRUTH Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 03:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Ansh666:: "That this is "written like an encyclopedia article" has no bearing on the content - which is what WP:NOT is all about." I was responding to people who were throwing around NOTNEWS, NOTESSAY as if they actually had a clue as to how those applied. They are properly employed when people make contributions that read like news stories, essays, whatever. That's what those sections of WP:NOT are about.

" As far as sources in this article, they are either now WP:RSes ..." In which case we keep them and get rid of the unreliable ones. It's that simple.

"Also note that, as some have stated,[weasel words] this is a kind of clickbait from news orgs desperate on viewership" Again, that is not a judgement Wikipedia policy allows us to make. We reflect the world, in all its wonderful idiocies and idiosyncrasies—we do not judge it.

"IIRC, news reports, even the "News reporting" that WP:NEWSORG describes as reliable, are often considered not reliable if they are from something like silly season."[citation needed].

"Finally, remember that there is no deadline - no need to put out an article like this with so many flaws in it." No, and anyone can fix those flaws (hint hint).

"We can afford to wait to see if some theories persist and reliable sources are published, then recreate the article in the form of the others you mention below."Or we can just apply ourselves to fixing it. Get rid of the unreliable and unsourced stuff, and stick to that which reliable news organizations have discussed. It sounds from that as if you're more interested in trying to prove a point than do what's best for the article and Wikipedia. Daniel Case (talk) 03:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You know what, I'm not even going to bother to respond to that drivel. I'm out. ansh666 03:46, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not that you were terribly in to begin with. Daniel Case (talk) 03:51, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • obliterate with orbital lasers operated by aliens brought through a space warp operated by the CIA for the Trilateral Commission, or failing that, just delete it. Filler nonsense put up on the web or in the papers by the media because they don't have any substantial news on the matter is still filler when it isn't clickbait; their desperation is not our notability. Mangoe (talk) 12:46, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ours not to reason why. They decide, we report. Daniel Case (talk) 02:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Teleport to the redlinked dimension per Mangoe. (That's a delete.) - David Gerard (talk) 13:05, 25 March 2014 (UTC) Specifically, a delete without prejudice if good enough sources come through - it's conceivably a topic worthy of an article, but I don't think this is it - David Gerard (talk) 12:42, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Out of sheer respect for you and everything you've done Dave, plus your being adroit enough to not take this vote so seriously, no snarky or pointed remarks here. Daniel Case (talk) 02:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to have offended. I do think the content and referencing is exceedingly low-quality. I have clarified that I think "delete without prejudice" - David Gerard (talk) 12:42, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article refers to things people said on reddit. That is not encyclopedic at all. Are we going to start referring to YouTube comments next? Ducksandwich (talk) 14:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It does not follow from the use of bad sources that no reliable ones can be found and the article must therefore be deleted; as I have noted above there are indeed some reliable sources used. Would it be so hard for you to try culling the unsourced and poorly sourced material? Daniel Case (talk) 02:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I don't consider the conspiracy on this issue stands merit for separate article. Most of the theories seems not to be backed with reliable supporting information either. --G(x) (talk) 14:36, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed too many times to count. Daniel Case (talk) 03:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Daniel Case: If I am not allow to emphasize the opinion, then I withdraw my opinion. There are many of them "addressing too many times to count" already. --G(x) (talk) 06:02, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete there are plenty of conspiracy theories on wikipedia. I myself found this page after searching Wikipedia for this particular article! This site is about collecting all information, even if that is information of what people think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.52.213.133 (talk) 17:08, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the reasons stated above. A few of these theories seem to be WP:OR and the style doesn't seem to help, either. I agree that this topic may merit its own article once all the details about the crash is confirmed, but since everything is all speculation at this point, there's really no need to have this. 96.48.151.67 (talk) 17:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not merge (please). One purpose for this kind of article is to keep this sort of [stuff] off of the main page. While I personally don't care for this article, if it meets notability criteria then it meets notability criteria.  ~E:71.20.250.51 (talk) 17:30, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RS. The fact that a reddit comment is used to explain one of the conspiracy exemplifies the lack of reliable sources. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 19:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, one injudiciously used source is not a reason to delete an article. Daniel Case (talk) 03:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Daniel Case: I didn't say that the article should be deleted merely for the references to reddit. Rather, I said that the references to reddit exemplify how there are no proper sources on this topic. Let me elaborate. The vast majority of the sources are just clickbait documenting every random speculation out there, e.g. the article "Flight 370: When facts are few, imaginations run wild." Even the 9/11 truthers, JFK people, and moon landing people all have at least SOME evidence to point to. But as the source says, there is little to no information right now, just imaginations running wild. All of these "conspiracy theories" are at best, trivial speculations and unsupported extrapolations. When there is a mainstream account and actual evidence to interpret, then maybe there will be notable conspiracy theories to document. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 15:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@FenixFeather: "I didn't say that the article should be deleted merely for the references to reddit." No, you didn't. You said something even less defensible (and not entirely grammatical, either, though I assume that was just an oversight as you typed and retyped. You said "The fact that a reddit comment is used to explain one of the conspiracy exemplifies the lack of reliable sources." Which tells anyone reading you just glanced over the article, looked for something that could make it seem risible, and used it as a reason for deletion, which it isn't. Daniel Case (talk) 03:03, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. To translate to simpler English, what I said was "Having to resort to reddit is indicative of the lack of sources on the topic," i.e., using reddit in itself is not an excuse to delete the article, but rather the necessity of reddit is symptomatic of the problems with the content area. I'm not sure where I'm being ungrammatical. But I explained my reasoning for why it should be deleted in more detail. At first I only made a brief comment because I felt I would only be repeating others' arguments. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 04:19, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge judiciously - Article should either be kept, or merged judiciously into Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 per any RELIABLE SOURCES. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Most of these lack sufficient reliable sources to justify their inclusion. We should only include conspiracy theories which have had notable coverage in reliable sources (either because they're credible or because they have had a significant impact on the event). Being part of a 'here's a list of crazy ideas' article doesn't quite cut it. If any do meet this level of coverage, they can be included in the main article - and only where there is a) a significant number of well attested conspiracy theories and b) significant coverage of the fact of conspiracy theories should we be creating a standalone article. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:35, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"We should only include conspiracy theories which have had notable coverage in reliable sources". You do realize that undermines any rationale for deletion you could give? Daniel Case (talk) 03:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's one thing if we speculate. It's another thing if reliable sources do. We don't hold them to our editorial standards. Daniel Case (talk) 03:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Do Not Merge ... and allow for alien abduction by Korean Airlines Flight 672. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:18, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per reasons argued by Ampwright. 179.57.22.67 (talk) 21:48, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See my response to him. Daniel Case (talk) 03:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Having this page here means that this speculation will not show up on the main article.--Auric talk 22:18, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • But that by itself has no bearing on the appropriateness of this article, eh? ansh666 22:23, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Do we really need a list of the crazy ideas people have come up with? SOXROX (talk) 22:23, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Soxrock24: Actually, yes, we do. Incidentally, I might note that WP:SPECULATION only applies to events that haven't happened yet, which this is not. Jinkinson talk to me 01:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I invoked the other three articles because a great many people are arguing that we shouldn't have an article on this sort of thing, apparently unaware that those articles exist and have existed for quite some time. To simply suggest I'm leaning on OTHERSTUFFEXISTS because of that is facile misrepresentation of my argument, easily refutable by looking at what I'm responding to. You would need to make an argument as to why this article specifically doesn't need to exist, and I haven't seen any good one here (nor do I suspect I'm likely to, the way this is going). Daniel Case (talk) 03:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OTHERSTUFF or not, the reasoning by Daniel Case seems legit. According to NFRINGE, a fringe theory is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, in at least one major publication. And I don't really buy delete comments like the article being UNENCYCLOPAEDIC and SPECULATIVE in nature which looks to me to be a bit bias and not neutral; and I suppose SOURCES and VERIFY also supersedes those two. Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 03:29, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've replied to those concerns in a different comment above. ansh666 03:39, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And now I've replied right back. Daniel Case (talk) 03:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, BTW, "decades ago"? Maybe KAL 007, but TWA 800 still isn't old enough to buy a beer. Daniel Case (talk) 03:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete way too soon. Will these conspiracy theories persist beyond this initial event? If so, write the article then. All this does now is play into the hands of terrorists and wingnuts. Like those whackjobs who doubt the reality of 9/11 Nfitz (talk) 01:51, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:NFRINGE. The numerous theories have a single source (or two, if they are lucky) backing them , who do little more than barely touch on the details before poking fun at these off-the-wall theories. None of them are extensively referenced, nor referenced seriously. The other flight theories brought up by Daniel Case above have more sources, who more thoroughly go through the theories in a serious manner. Kíeiros (talk) 02:10, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And who's to say this article won't, either, if some people actually have the guts to edit it according to policy? Daniel Case (talk) 03:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If people do so, then I'll change my vote. Until that happens, none of these theories have enough support to be considered notable.Kíeiros (talk) 11:29, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Because if the black helicopters see this article we're ALL in for it. (And for real, when there was literally nothing to go on you could get plenty outlandish and no one could prove you wrong.)--Varkman (talk) 04:05, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete A theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. WP:FRINGE A bunch of lazy journalists churning out wingnut ideas does not qualify as scholarship, and I don't care how many other dingbat conspiracy theories Wikipedia hosts. Perhaps those articles ought to be be Scrutinised too and marked for deletion? Waugh Bacon (talk) 04:38, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. Doesn't apply here, as this is an article about conspiracy theories. Your other, uh, concerns I guess is the right word for it, have been addressed by my other responses. Daniel Case (talk) 05:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong and unequivocal KEEP - this article is improving. Hijackers wanted to obtain stealth technology from 22 passengers that were employed by Freescale Semiconductor went awry.

  • Keep At least for now. These are hypotheses which stand on their own as current thinking on the topic. They form part of the historical record as it stands at this point. Once a cause is positively determined, this article would be ripe for deletion. Cesium 133 (talk) 05:24, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Daniel Case: there isn't 'delete' a vote without one of your retorts. It's all too much. BTW, and I would appreciate it if you would stop spamming all the responses. I subscribe to the Bin Laden/Taliban theory, that al Qaeda undoubtedly wanted some valuable technology Freescale Semiconductor had. But that theory doesn't seem to be represented. Maybe I should add it myself. ;-) -- Ohc ¡digame! 06:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Ohconfucius: I see it as constructive replies against those weak delete votes. Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 07:46, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then you are implying that all the delete votes are weak, because there are retorts against all of them. I don't see that as being the case. -- Ohc ¡digame! 07:54, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But all the delete votes are weak. I am about to take a long international plane trip, so I won't really be able to participate for a while as I have been. But I am glad to see my points are being understood by some others (see just below). Daniel Case (talk) 16:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Reading through the delete votes, it seems like people want the article gone because it's filled with ridiculous ideas. That's an understandable and expected gut reaction. The thing is, inclusion of things on Wikipedia isn't based on an educated assessment of their validity (otherwise the delete votes would be pretty spot-on). Inclusion is rather determined by whether or not the thing received adequate coverage. We rely on the editorial departments of secondary sources to dictate what we include here, rather than our own opinions of the material (our editors just edit text, rather than make those types of decisions). WP:NFRINGE says that if "at least one reliable secondary source [has] commented on it, disparaged it, or discussed," it can be included. In this article I see references from CBS, NBC, Christian Science Monitor, and CNN, to name a few, so it would seem the criteria has been met. Again, our own editorial assessment of a fringe theory's possible accuracy (or inaccuracy) doesn't factor into questions of its inclusion here, for better or worse.equazcion → 11:05, 26 Mar 2014 (UTC)
Am not totally against your position here. But isn't this a bit like saying "the world is full of stupid people, therefore any encyclopedia should contain some stupid stuff"? Do we have a "THIS IS BO**OCKS" template to put at the top? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, not any encyclopedia. Wikipedia is unique in that as a matter of policy it doesn't make its own judgment calls in this area. Other encyclopedias can and should decide what's worthy of inclusion in their texts based on the assessments of their highly educated staff. We just don't do that sort of thing here. Whether or not you agree that this is what Wikipedia should be, this is what it is, currently. We echo the sources that we've deemed reliable. Although, do note that we're presenting these conspiracy theories quite clearly as conspiracy theories, and not as facts. equazcion → 11:19, 26 Mar 2014 (UTC)
The problem here isn't reliability, but notability. The media attention to these outlandish claims appears to derive entirely from the lack of substantial news. It seems certain to be the case that some set of more or less well-grounded theories will persist, and those will settle into the main article. But these theories aren't them; they are just the mouthings of random crackpots given a voice for lack of anything else to publish. Mangoe (talk) 12:06, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It seems unlikely that all these different publications resorted to discussing conspiracy theories on this event because they all happened to experience a shortage of news. Either way, that would be speculative -- unless you have evidence -- but by the sound of it, this is more a determination based again on a judgment of the material, as in, "it's so ridiculous that they must have had nothing else to report." Which again is not our call, and policy-wise it's irrelevant. Wikipedia doesn't have a mechanism for weeding out the stuff that may have only made it to the news because of a slow news day. equazcion → 12:22, 26 Mar 2014 (UTC)
Sure, it has such a mechanism: it's called WP:AFD! Mangoe (talk) 13:34, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 10:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • A difference between the pages being that JFK was assassinated about 40 years before Wikipedia was created. 71.19.161.130 (talk) 17:45, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 1) The article has some out of the world theories such as black hole theory and UFO theory, (No scientific evidence for black holes and UFOs on Earth...yet!). Also, most of the theories are more of a speculation and require more elaboration, which is hard to obtain as these conspiracies are mostly from social media. 2) MH370 has been confirmed by Malaysia's PM to have ended in the Indian Ocean. Probably, sooner or later the plane would be found somewhere deep. When that happens, this whole conspiracy thingy will stop, leaving the article not very notable in which a merge with main article would be favourable. 3) Since someone said this article was improving, what I think could be done is this: Give the some time to allow it to improve, then judge whether it should be kept, merged or deleted. Hz. tiang 12:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Daniel Case: Since you said "that means you delete them from the article, not vote to delete the article", shall I delete them now? Hz. tiang 12:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Hz.tiang: Actually, I had thought to do the same thing, but they were reported in a reliable source. I think they could use more detail and probably be combined in one section (Over time, I suspect, they will fade from any discussion and be deleted). Daniel Case (talk) 16:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For the time being at least. Unencyclopedic. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:07, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If something is "unencyclopedic", it always will be. Find another argument. Daniel Case (talk) 16:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article currently is keeping the conspiracy theorists off of the main article on the flight. I suggest we keep this one for that purpose until the flight is finally located. After the investigation is completed, this article can go the way of the Dodo.Wzrd1 (talk) 13:19, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want a space to 'audition' or 'filter' content for the main article, use the main article's talk page—that's what it's for. Don't knowingly create a crappy encyclopedia article because it's the path of least resistance. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:29, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't split off articles like this to act as tonsils. Mangoe (talk) 13:34, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't get me wrong, I firmly believe that this article is rubbish and should go. I'm simply saying that this article is deflecting the idiots away from the primary article, which is a good thing, as it lowers the number of reversions to the main article. I only suggested retaining this drivel until the aircraft is located, for the benefit of the primary article. That all said, I don't feel that strongly about retaining this hogwash, so it isn't a matter of whether to delete it as much as when it should be deleted. I just wanted to be clear that I'm not supporting this article based upon some notion of merit, only a suggestion to use it as tonsils.Wzrd1 (talk) 13:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's a poor keep argument. We don't have these articles as diversions for cranks, we have them because conspiracy theories are notable and people pay attention to them, even if they shouldn't. Daniel Case (talk) 16:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments are particularly unpersuasive—the vast majority of air crash articles don't have – or need – associated conspiracy theory articles. This remains true even if one only looks at air crashes that were particularly sensational, and which prompted similar intense media coverage and speculation when they occurred. See, for example, American Airlines Flight 587 (the airliner that crashed in New York City just two months after 9/11) Air France Flight 447 (a crash in the south Atlantic where search and recovery were hindered by remote location and uncertainties about the cause), or Air France Flight 4590 (the very public trail-of-flames crash of a Concorde). Inviting the extra maintenance overhead of an attractive nuisance 'conspiracy' article should not be done lightly. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:29, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Very well, by that candle, Category:Conspiracy theories should be deleted, as well as every article within that category. Actually, I'd be fine with that. Either we discard all conspiracy theories or we accept all common conspiracy theories. I'm actually for discarding them all.Wzrd1 (talk) 16:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"the vast majority of air crash articles don't have – or need – associated conspiracy theory articles.". But this isn't a typical air crash. Daniel Case (talk) 16:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge - The conspiracy theories surrounding the flight are very notable and are covered by many international media outlets. Those who want the article to be deleted denouncing the theories as "hoaxes" or similar claims are using their own arguments against them because a conspiracy theory can be a hoax, and when it's notable enough like the ones here, it definitely deserves covering on Wikipedia. Some of them are silly i agree, but many aren't and deleting this article too soon is very immature and ridiculously rushing, since the claims and investigations might develop in the future. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 16:55, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now - this article would be fine if it was more historic. It is now closer to a biography of a living person. These demand no original research. As time passes, I believe that cited NFRINGE are credible reasons for inclusion. The balance must be between promoting current fringe theories and documenting historic ones. At the moment all theories are living. The NFRINGE is to document fringe activity and not advocate for it. Also the fringe theories are typically used to describe alternatives to academic theories as oppose to alternate versions or speculation on events. 71.19.161.130 (talk) 17:40, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • userfy per Tokyogirl79, topic probably not of note yet. — Lfdder (talk) 18:05, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unencyclopedic, too much OR, not notable. I could go on but I will save it for when Daniel Case responds Aqmola (talk) 18:52, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Agmole: I am satisfied to sit back and contemplate my former eloquence, thank you very much. Daniel Case (talk) 03:03, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete full of WP:OR and non-notable fringe theories. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WP:NFRINGE, and WP:NOR. To me, this is clearly a case of a combination of original research and fringe theories being 'notability-washed', if you will, through the 24-hour news cycle having so little to report on, and thus seizing on the fringe theories of folks with blogs and on forums, in the days and weeks after the flight's disappearance. It would be one thing if the articles were "[extensively] researched" and "serious and reliable", as mentioned in WP:NFRINGE, but most of the discussion of the theories is little more than, "Hey! Look at what this person on Reddit has to say!". I can't see a future for this article which adds any value to the encyclopedia. (And yes, I have read and considered all of the discussion on this page up to now. Thank you in advance.) HOT WUK (talk) 19:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:NFRINGE -- To be notable, at least one reliable secondary source must have commented on it, disparaged it, or discussed it.. The article lists 21 reliable secondary sources that have done those things.--Genandrar (talk) 19:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- the article has 21 different reliable secondary sources, which is more than enough to satisfy the general notability guideline.
The notability guideline's only purpose is to ensure articles are verifiable, by making good secondary sources a requirement. I find it hard the believe users arguing that this article is "probably" not notable have read the notability guidelines beyond the page title. Any subjective notions about how "important" the topic is are irrelevant once the article has good secondary sources.
Personal opinions about the content of the article are doubly irrelevant. It doesn't matter if you think conspiracy theories are crazy ideas. Some people believe them, and we have reliable secondary sources saying they do. Our project should cover them, and their critics.
The notability guidelines and the state of the article are also separate issues. If an article is poorly written, has sections that are not sourced or are simply incorrect or crazy, the solution is to fix those problems, not delete the article.
I think the only applicable argument for deletion is that the article doesn't have enough new content to justify a separate article and could be easily covered in the main article, with a redirect. That's certainly a valid view, but I don't think the main article should have a section on conspiracy theories. I think they should be in this article.--Genandrar (talk) 19:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- the over-arching criteria for inclusion, as a WP article, is NOT whether we like the subject, or the fact that there are "conspiracy theories" on a given matter, or whether they're somewhat "flowing" or "hodge-podge" or so-called "fringe", but only whether the subject is stand-alone, notable (it definitely is, when big news agencies have even discussed the theories etc), and whether the matter is sourced. (This subject is COPIOUSLY sourced...by reliable sources.) This subject meets all of those things. The article is legitimate, regardless of personal feelings, bias, or attitudes, or "I don't like" reasons or notions. Calling something "fringe" or "speculation" is a circular argument, and also misses the entire point. There's an article on fake moon landing conspiracies. Why? Because that topic is SO notable, stand-alone, and sourced, it's like not funny. Yet many people (including high-level politicians) call that view or topic "fringe". Doesn't matter. It's notable enough. And so (at this point) is this Malaysian crashed airplane and theories that've been put forth regarding it. It's arguably big enough, and definitely sourced more than enough, and meets the criteria. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 01:55, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy for now, consider a merge later - As the plane is still missing, conspiracy theories of various sorts will pop up. For lack of any other information, news sources will cover these theories. After the plane's wreckage is found and the results of the first serious investigations are released, any conspiracy theories that persist for a while past the initial findings and continue to be covered in reliable sources may merit a section in the main article on the crash. The conspiracy theory article contains a hodgepodge of fringe theories, but it may also contain fringe theories that will become notable later on. I don't think this belongs in the main article space, but userfying it isn't a bad idea. - Bootstoots (talk) 02:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Bootstoots: I'm not sure if I buy that argument--if it's notable now, which it clearly is given the large amount of coverage it has received in reliable sources--then it always will be notable. Jinkinson talk to me 02:22, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think Gabby Merger said it well. Everyking (talk) 02:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unencylopedic fringe theories, purely baseless speculation. Many sources are nonserious, and the reliable ones, inevitable in the 24-hour news cycle, do not make the theories notable or relevant. Merge a couple lines that they exist, but detailed discussion of individual lunacies is undue weight and not our provenance. Reywas92Talk 03:46, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yawn All arguments dealt with in many counterarguments above. Daniel Case (talk) 04:16, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Reliable sources do not make the theories notable"? Yes they absolutely do! They are the only criteria we use to decide whether topics are notable.--Genandrar (talk) 14:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete The article quality is absolute shit TheAirplaneGuy (talk) 05:25, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@TheAirplaneGuy: Please don't "shit" here Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 07:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We have the General Notability Guideline, and this article passes it. In NONEWS I only found the phrase [news coverage] should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. That hasn't been done. Article quality and the sanity of those whom the conspiracies originate from cannot be discussed at AfD, as pointed out many times above. --Pgallert (talk) 06:24, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(more Flight MH370)

  • Strong Keep and not merge. With news reports of the plane's multiple tracking systems deliberately shutoff (from the cockpit?), in quick sequence, and then a U-turn, this airline flight screams, "Conspiracy!" as noted in the sources. So much detail would be wp:UNDUE weight in the main page, "Malaysia Airlines Flight 370" which focuses on passengers, flight plan, or search-and-recovery of the wreckage and black-box recorders. Keep separate for expansion of unusual, detailed reports which could be wp:Grandstanding of tangent viewpoints, if allowed to get billing in the main article. -Wikid77 (talk) 09:06, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Most !votes have missed that this is a stand alone list. WP:LISTN applies and we should consider the topic of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 conspiracy theories not specific entries. The references currently in the article shows the subject passes WP:NFRINGE. It doesn't matter who believes of disbelieves, only have WP:RSs written about it showing notability. As to individual entries, the criteria for inclusion is decided for each list and should be discussed on Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 conspiracy theories. This list will likely be trimmed down. WP:SOFIXIT applies. I rarely give credence to conspiracy theories, but it is a cultural phenomena that cannot be made to go away by deleting articles on Wikipedia. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 09:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article says something substantial about the time we live in and about the way how many people still think in the 21st century. The topic, the content of our article (not its truthfulness) and its notability is verifiable by multiple reliable sources. The most detailed encyclopedic project in the world should preserve this kind of information for future generations, for sociology researchers, or just for us as a reminder of human curiosity which, despite all the progress, still resorts to the realm of the mystical. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 12:26, 27 March 2014 (UTC)--Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 12:26, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. There are many reports about "conspiracy theories", which passes GNG. They are an expected part of an encyclopedic article. Our coverage of them is especially important because the distinction between a mainstream theory and a conspiracy theory in this case is solely determined by the media's point of view - e.g. whether it is credible that the U. S. would lie about Diego Garcia, whether it is credible that someone could have hacked into the plane's electronics, etc. We distinguish the articles because of WP:FRINGE, which endorses a media point of view, but deleting the details about the ideas that distrust the "wrong" people entirely is unacceptable. Wnt (talk) 14:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a conspiracy-theorists' blog. We are here to spread knowledge, not ignorant speculation by the chronically delusional. There is nothing remotely 'notable' about the tinfoil-hat brigade once more coming up with the usual bollocks about yet another unfortunate event. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:25, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So it doesn't matter what GNG says, what NFRINGE says (as Genandrar pointed out very well above with the 21 sources) ... just whether you think it's a Good Thing or a Bad Thing. Wnt (talk) 16:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What part of 'not notable' is so hard to understand? Sure, reliable sources have made passing comments about the usual conspiracy nonsense - but there is no reason whatsoever to see this as having any enduring notability at this point. It is essentially trivia, useful no doubt to journalists looking to say something that they haven't already said ten times already. Wikipedia is under no obligation to repeat it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:11, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The part of "not notable" that's hard to understand is the fact that people are jumping back and forth between the dictionary definition and the Wikipedia policy. Under the policy, something either received the right kind of coverage and is therefore notable and worthy of inclusion -- or it didn't and isn't. If you're talking about what personally feels worthy of noting, regardless of the policy, it might be better to explicitly spell that out, just to avoid confusion. equazcion → 16:36, 27 Mar 2014 (UTC)
(ec) It is anything but trivia. Most of the 'conspiracy theories' are explorations of very real fears regarding aircraft. Shoot-downs of civilian airliners with broken electronics, cyberattacks, or even seizure of airliners carrying WMDs are all very real ideas and every time people discuss them this will be used as a potential example. Future sources will surely continue to refer to this incident for decades to come - centuries if the runaway greenhouse doesn't stop them first; this will attract the same sort of people who publish documentaries about their explanations of Jack the Ripper. No doubt you'll dismiss all those future sources as one way or another unsuitable/uninteresting also, but that's not the policy. Wnt (talk) 16:38, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Wnt, your crystal ball doesn't qualify as a reliable source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But the sources in the article itself do. KonveyorBelt 16:44, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I only picked up my crystal ball to refute yours. You're the one who started predicting the future claiming this doesn't have "enduring" notability. I just see there were 21 sources and that's all I need to know. Wnt (talk) 16:56, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) See WP:NOTTRUTH. Like Wnt said, all of these things are very real possibilities and we should give them due weight. Hell, we don't even know where the airplane is, although Malaysia claims it went down. But how it did so is as yet undiscovered, and these things are still possibilities. And if they are wrong, it still received notable sources. KonveyorBelt 16:44, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - After sifting through the tinfoil hat remarks in various newspaper reader comment sections, it's 100% evident to me that this will be the next 9-11 or Kennedy Assassination for stupid people. Sufficient sources already exist to pass GNG and, oh, brother, are there gonna be more. It doesn't take a crystal ball to figure that out... Carrite (talk) 15:55, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No real reason given in nom, and the delete votes are so pisspoor they may have well stayed home. KonveyorBelt 16:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are strong argument for keep; However, I have said Delete for now. As with Biography of a living person, this incident involves recently deceased people. No one addressed this that I see. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.19.161.130 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By and large this is an article about the plane, not the people; even if it is about the people, it is generally about them in aggregate, like an article about a country, which is not a BLP. Wnt (talk) 16:58, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
True, but it involves the death of 100s of people. The first edit of 9/11 conspiracy theories was not until 2004. Certainly there is a difference between a conspiracy theory and tabloid news. One has allowed people to analyze the evidence. The other is speculation. As the situation plays out, there may well be a lot of reason to have this page. However, cell phone video, the flight data recorder, etc maybe recovered and the majority of these theories will just look stupid. I agree with the rational of conspiracy theories. I don't think Wikipedia should be tabloid news. 71.19.161.130 (talk) 17:31, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When, as seems inevitable, legal proceedings are opened, will any part(s) of this article be considered "sub judice"? Or will that depend on the jurisdiction of the country in which those proceedings take place? (... or maybe Wkikpedia just doesn't care.) Martinevans123 (talk) 17:37, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Heheh. I have to admit that I had to look up sub judice on Wikipedia, and (thank God) I think most Americans know less about it than I did. More importantly, we don't care. :) Wnt (talk) 23:07, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wnt and Carrite. This is not an endorsement of any of the theories - just their notability as fringe theories. The article could use a lot of eyes, and a lot more edting, which I am sure it will get. Bearian (talk) 18:09, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I am having a harder time to buy WP:FRINGE the more I think about this. First, there is no accepted theory. In fact, the page is actually a list of open speculations on the disappearance of Flight 370. There is no accepted main stream theory. The page is a list of speculations on causes of a current event. For WP:FRINGE to apply, people will have to retrieve wreckage and evidence, come to a hypothesis on the cause and prevent a theory on why the plane disappeared. Then, this page could be presented the way it is. I think it is specious to call this a fringe theory. Maybe the Wikipedia policy applies, but at least the page should be moved. It doesn't refute anything. It is just a list of people's speculations. 71.19.161.130 (talk) 19:20, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@71.19.161.130: You are correct about the ambiguity there. This could be compared to how truthers call the official account of 9/11 the "official conspiracy theory"--except there is no "official conspiracy theory" regarding MH370. For this reason, and to make it clear that this page wasn't supposed to be about every possible explanation that has been proposed, I added a caveat in the lead about how things in this article should have been "dismissed as absurd by the mainstream media." While my intent was to keep non-conspiratorial speculation out of this article, apparently User:8tythree saw it as POV-pushing on my part, which is why I removed it. However, although the sentence about how things in the article must have been described as conspiracy theories (by reliable sources, of course) seems specific enough to me, if you want to discuss which sentence should be in the article, head over to the talk page and do so there. Jinkinson talk to me 19:51, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to "Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 alternative theories" - I agree with Daniel Case that alternative theories can, will, and should be explored and considered. I strongly believe that this is a case of "internal hijacking" as proposed by this Yahoo News article. Check out Ethiopian Airlines Flight 702 hijacked last month, Asia-Pacific Asia-Pacific Arlines in 1998, and China Airlines Flight 334 in 1986 as recent examples. I've been working on furthering this theory on my website. - Technophant (talk) 00:31, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It's too soon to know if these conspiracy theories will progress beyond various individuals' fringe ideas of what happened. Besides, it doesn't list my preferred theory, that the Iranians hijacked it and flew it to their secret volcano lair to turn into a nuclear cruise missile. --Carnildo (talk) 01:10, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I feel that the shoot down and phantom cellphone theory can be merged into the main article, but think that the rest of it is clickbait rubbish for attracting visitors to blogs and etc. Whitewater111 (talk) 02:24, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Whitewater11. A very important point that you and others who are so with "delete" keep missing. Ok, ready? Here it goes. It's NOT the specific theories or views that are the issue or the determination for this article's existence, but rather THAT THERE ARE MANY THEORIES, VIEWS, NOTIONS, AND SPECULATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN GOING ON. Not the views themselves, which I would agree in many cases are borderline wacky or silly. NOT THE ISSUE OR THE POINT!!! It's the PHENOMENON that is what is notable...not the individual theories in question. (Forgive the caps, they were not necessarily meant as yelling but as special emphasis.) Yes, there's a flow and flux in this particular matter, etc, and not all theories are all that smart arguably, but that does NOT negate the (sourced) fact that the matter (of theories and speculations and fears etc) have been going ON! The specific ones are not that relevant to the actual point. And it's become obvious that many editors on here, who are so strong for "delete", are getting matters a little confused. At least to some extent. The PHENOMENON is what is notable, not necessarily each individual theory put forth IN the phenomenon. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 03:00, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@gabby, I don't deny that they are conspiracy theories on this event, but as noted in my earlier vote, some of it is notable and strongly sourced, wile the validity of some of the other stuff is rather more then not questionable. My overall concern is that this is going to become a list of every conspiracy theory on this accident. It's not a case of what I don't like or do, but rather more some rational that - yes this material has a place, but more as a part of the main article rather then a subject of it's own - and yes I do see some plausable insight to some of the material - not all of it. I feel that the more notable theories should be plucked out, and placed into the main article under such a header - it would become more cohesive for the reader. Whitewater111 (talk) 08:37, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Whether the theories are plausible or not is moot. What matters is that they're reliably sourced (Chicago Sun-Times? Wall Street Journal? CNN? Sounds good to me) and that they're notable enough to be encyclopedic (which the references usually do, as in this case). It's tempting to go into the whole "Elvis lives! 9/11 was an inside job! [Insert other conspiracy theory here]!", but let's ignore that for now. WP:FRINGE says "Wikipedia summarizes significant opinions, with representation in proportion to their prominence" for it's very first sentence! Judging by the previously listed sources, I think these count as "significant opinions", even if they do seem a little harebrained. The lede for WP:CONTROVERSIALFACT also seems to back this up. Sorry if I seem to be spamming guidelines, but for something like this, it seems necessary. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 02:56, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete*: in principle, Wikipedia is to provide facts, not speculations. While circulation of those conspiracy theories is a fact, Wikipedia should not have a role to propagate them.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.91.9.115 (talk) 03:17, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, this is annoying now. EVERY SINGLE EDITOR who has voted "delete" reveals that he or she keeps missing the point. The editor just before who said "Wikipedia is to provide facts, not speculations. While circulation of those conspiracy theories is a fact, Wikipedia should not have a role to propagate them" shows he's not really getting the point and is not understanding what is actually being "propagated"...because Wikipedia is "providing facts" in that it's providing the FACT that there are "conspiracy theories" and speculations that have been going on regarding this missing airplane. The editor even admitted that it is a fact that the speculations have been going on, but is wrong in thinking that that means WP is somehow "propagating them". No, just not suppressing them, because of "I don't like" reasons or uptightness. It's NOT the theories themselves that WP is "propagating"...but the PHENOMENON ITSELF that there even are theories and fears and speculations. Why is everyone who's for delete being so SLOPPY AND KNEE-JERK in their whole understanding of this, which is really mis-understanding of the entire point!! WP is not supposed to be in the business of SUPPRESSING information that you don't like...but is to "provide facts" on what's TAKING PLACE. That's IT. It's NOT the specific theories or views that are the issue or the determination for this article's existence, but rather THAT THERE ARE MANY THEORIES, VIEWS, NOTIONS, AND SPECULATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN GOING ON. Not the views themselves, which I would agree in many cases are borderline wacky or silly. NOT THE ISSUE OR THE POINT!!! It's the PHENOMENON that is what is notable...not the individual theories in question. Gabby Merger (talk) 03:34, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Um, no. The 'phenomenon' isn't notable - it is just another example of conspiracy theorists concocting conspiracy theories. It's what they do. The article provides no evidence whatsoever that this particular instance of conspiracy-mongering is any different from any other. All it does is provide a few examples of the same old same old - with no real analysis of the 'phenomenon', much less any evidence that it is in any way unusual. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:50, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I could say all the same things about something truly boring and repetitive, like a baseball game. It absolutely beats the shit out of me why anybody needs to know or care about the newest baseball game when all they'll do is hit and toss a ball around like they have every time before. To quote the paragraph above, "it's what they do." I mean, if they ran tape of one of their old games from a decade or two ago I sure wouldn't notice the difference. I'd like to know why the Umpteenth World Series (or any of the even less notable matches) can't be lumped into an article with all the others with a link to some database of particulars if anyone really cares. But do I go around nominating people's dull-ass sports articles for deletion? No. They have reliable sources and that's all that matters. I would like to see the same courtesy for conspiracy theories, especially when they're not all people running around in circles - some of the ideas put forward in this case are pretty interesting. Wnt (talk) 04:27, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Wnt's response to "AndyTheGrump"...and I would add that of course the phenomenon itself is notable, as it's been mentioned, noted, sourced, discussed. It's insane for you to say it's not notable WHEN THE VERY POINT OF ALL THAT WE'RE GOING THROUGH NOW PROVES THAT IT'S NOTABLE...duhhh...lol. How exactly is not "not notable"? Simply because you say so? That's a circular argument and statement of "it's not worthy or notable, because I say it's not notable"...REGARDLESS OF ALL THE ACTUAL EVIDENCE AND SOURCES AND DISCUSSIONS SURROUNDING IT THAT PROVE OTHERWISE. Sighs... Again, to re-iterate, it's NOT the specific speculations and theories themselves that are necessarily "notable", but rather the issue OF put-forth theories, as an overall situation. That's it. Let's PLEASE not always mix things up and confuse the two things. And again, Grump, when you say that the phenomenon itself is "not notable", you're just plain wrong. It unquestionably is. Also, what does the article not proving that this instance of theorizing is any different than other instances have anything do with it? Since when is that the determination? Because the many OTHER instances of theorizing have been notable situations too, generally. So? Even if some haven't, that doesn't mean that this here doesn't meet notability criteria. But there's no question that this instance is notable, because over 30 sources is not proof enough for you? And the fact that there's been SO MUCH INTERNET TRAFFIC ON THIS ISSUE ALONE is not proof enough...of "notability" and "fame" etc? CNN is not notable proof for you? Even if some of the theories or conjectures given are vapid or not notable or are "fringe". (Not all the theories are necessarily arguably so wacky though...some arguably have merit...though not all do.) But again, it's not the theories themselves that are really the issue per se...but the fact that there's controversy, doubt, speculations, fears, conjectures, and theories surrounding the matter. That's the overarching point. Not whether you personally "like" that there's been theorizing. But the phenomenon itself. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 05:56, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm aware "you are insane" isn't a valid reason to keep the article. Neither is the fact that the article is up for discussion, for that matter. And screaming in CAPITALS and bold isn't either. As for your assertion that the article is about the 'phenomenon', rather than about the theories themselves, that isn't what it looks like now - the lede makes it entirely clear that the intention is to list as many conspiracy theories (i.e. primary source material for the 'phenomenon')as possible, regardless of whether they have been discussed as a part of a conspiracy-theory 'phenomenon' by secondary sources. In other words, you are arguing that we should 'keep' another article entirely. Since that article appears not to exist. and since you consider the subject notable, I suggest you write it... AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:44, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Going in circles now, and it's tiring, and it's a merry-go-round. No, you and the others DON'T get it, not really. Not all the individual theories or conjectures are necessarily so notable...but the overall situation or phenomenon (that of various speculations and conjectures) is clearly notable and very sourced. (By the way, I never said "you're insane", so don't mis-quote me, I said "IT's insane for you to...") And it doesn't matter that the article is listing or describing some of the theories. It's only giving cursory broad summations and general information about them, not heavy detail necessarily. That's to be expected if it's about the phenomenon of the theories. Some information about some of the theories themselves should be mentioned. Not a big problem in context. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 05:10, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)*2 Alright, alright, let's just calm down here. Yes, it may not seem big in the grand scheme of things, but there's enough sources to prove its notability, even though many of these theories really make you wonder what the people who thought of them were on. Baseball games and the like are basically just stats and results, but something like a missing plane and the theories surrounding that have a lot more story to them (by story I mean encyclopedic prose content as opposed to a batting chart and a few sentences). Any sort of strange phenomenon I'd think should have its own article for the conspiracies surrounding it, assuming there were enough reputable sources. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 06:13, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I've said it before, and even though I don't care much for conspiracy theories, if an event like the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting can have an article solely about other theories, even though it's know what happened, who did it, and partially why, being open and shut, then an event like this, along with its mysterious nature can surely have an article for theories. --Matt723star (talk) 14:59, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: Agree with user:Daniel Case on all of his comments. Also I missed the point, what are the grounds for the article's nomination for deletion? Dmatteng (talk) 15:26, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not , Under Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion, section 3 says Scandal mongering, promoting things "heard through the grapevine" or gossiping. Articles and content about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy. Articles should not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person., seems to be relevant. This is of course notable and at some point is acceptable. It is hard in the current form to see how it is encyclopedic. It seems a slipper slope where Wikipedia may in ten years be like E-talk daily. Most air crash investigator are saying things like "It is too early to tell", etc. Also as for 'conspiracy theories', a hallmark is that someone from the mainstream has refuted them. All of these are so current as to not had any time to be vetted. It is rather incredible that something 'Rush Limbaugh' says on CNN makes it to Wikipedia. I hear people. This is fascinating; Is it worthy of being in an Encyclopedia? 71.19.161.130 (talk) 17:07, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete made up stuff by journalists while they wait for facts, nearly all of it is speculation rather than conspiracy theories. Wikipedia is not a blog for speculators. MilborneOne (talk) 15:55, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Potentially merge...but definitely keep. I agree; a lot of the theories being propounded about this case are asinine, idiotic, moronic, foolish, puerile, any number of words you may wish to use, and don't really deserve to be given the time of day. Unfortunately, they are being given the time of day, by reputable organizations such as CNN, no less. It's gotten to the point that coverage of the conspiracy theories has become a story in itself for some news organizations. (I even happened to see it on CNN when Dan Lemon had some pundit on to defend his own 24-hour-a-day coverage, which has dredged up some of these ideas. It was one of the most absurdly meta moments I've ever seen on TV.) And I'd argue that it's gone farther - there's now a backlash against the coverage of the coverage of the conspiracy theories. So they've become a part of the story in and of themselves, one way or another, and I think that needs to be dealt with. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 16:12, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is some merit to this. However, the page as it stands now, looks like technical explanations. If it is a page about a social phenomenon, it would make more sense. Really the word theory should be removed from the article (it is in the title) and be changed to speculation or something like that. 71.19.161.130 (talk) 20:05, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I also disapprove of the "conspiracy theory" name, especially since the mainstream explanations seem to be leaning toward terrorist conspiracies; the phrase is a USism dating back to JFK, but an abuse of the English language. I would like something more like "Speculative explanations for the Malaysian Airlines Flight 370 crash". (Speaking of conspiracy theories, to dispel the too-serious atmosphere here, I'll mention I recently ran across a true howler, the most ridiculous explanation for the JFK assassination evar, aired in the popular American "History Channel", namely that he was killed because he knew about a secret hoard of gold on Mount Victorio that LB Johnson secretly had shipped on military cargo planes to his ranch. Still... it's creative entertainment, and as Lotto pushers say (but less truthfully), "Ya never know". :) Wnt (talk) 20:19, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vote to Keep, with Comment: Daniel, your information is correct and well thought out. What I move to do is rename the article to include the word "notable" within its title. This will do two things: first off, it will silence these people who are failing to understand the WP policies you've explained time and again as well as clear away the weird "wormhole" and "space alien" theories. In this case, if a source could be proven as completely not notable or trash, it could be removed swiftly and without bias or mercy; however, if "x" theory is documented by "list of x sources", then we can keep the content and we'll have an article that is up to par and can stand with the best! Thanks. მაLiphradicusEpicusთე 20:09, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I find "wormhole" and "space alien" theories as plausible and well referenced as what is currently on the page. Daniel's argument about the existence of air crash conspiracy pages is not quite right. Those pages are in a historic context where as this is a current event. Because CNN is a reliable source in some cases, does not make it reliable in all cases. References and support should stand by themselves and not solely on the source. If the media reports speculation, this does not make it fact. Really what is the problem with waiting a while. Somebody can keep the information on a personal page and it can be used at a later time when a proper investigation is concluded. I am sure when the searchers discover debris covered in eco-plasm, we will all have a good laugh :). 71.19.161.130 (talk) 22:23, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Another thing that is worthy of notice is the fact that News Media (such as CNN, BBC, etc) want to improve their ratings and they do this with interesting. news. People will lap up conspiracy theories faster than a cat laps up milk! Why on earth would notable news agencies NOT cover them? It's just logic...even if what they are covering is completely ludicrous! Interesting news + general public = higher news-station ratings! მაLiphradicusEpicusთე
  • Delete - Unfounded speculation on an event in the news does not deserve a page. It should be noted that other incidents of similar nature in the past did not get a 'conspiracy theory' page thus the same principle should be applied to this event. — Harpsichord246 (talk) 01:03, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXiST is a valid deletion reason, then I should refute it by TWA Flight 800 alternative theories. Foremost among those theories were ideas directly parallel to those for flight 370: that the airliner was shot down by a missile and those responsible were covering it up. Wnt (talk) 01:57, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The mainstream media like CNN and BBC are covering conspiracy theories. Some are from significant sources supported by nation states such as Iran's PressTV, and it's US-branded outlet Veterans Today by a wide variety of voices such as Michael Shrimpton, Leuren Moret, and Yoichi Shimatsu. Most are of the same anti-semitic disinformation variety as noted by ADL on anti-semitic conspiracy theories which blame the US or Israel for either shooting down or diverting the aircraft, and might be a deliberate intelligence pyschological warfare campaign on the part of a nation-state or affliliated terrorist groups which routinely delete any mention of such conspiracy sources. For example, Veterans Today was deleted without any discussion, Michael Shrimptom was also deleted as noted by a news source. The fact that subject might himself be an unreliable news source is in fact notable if the subject has been noted by other media or other conspiracy sites as either a reliable or unreliable source. Bachcell (talk) 13:36, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In general the content is verifiable and is covered in reliable sources. Do I think some of the various theories (like, oh, I don't know....the black-hole or alien-abduction) are so implausible that they are cannot pass general notability, violate the spirit of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collector of information, were espoused by people not regarded as aviation experts and can be filed under a combination of Fringe theories & WP:RSOPINION? Yes. I do think a title-change is in order, perhaps something along the lines of "Malaysian Airlines Flight 370 disappearance theories" since all we have at this point are theories and not all of them involve a conspiracy. Shearonink (talk) 16:14, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The point of the article is not to attempt to determine the validity or plausibility of conspiracy theories or the reason why the aircraft went down. The point of the article is documenting the existence of those conspiracy theories about why the aircraft went down, mostly espoused by some very notable people, such as Rupert Murdoch and Rush Limbaugh, and repeated by significant media coverage of those theories - which is a notable event in and of itself. All the information in the article -- i.e., reports of people espousing these theories -- is verifiable, because the theories really have, or have not, been proposed by various people as documented by the supporting links. It doesn't really matter how plausible the "black hole" theory actually is. When a notable person espouses it, the espousal is the notable event, not the theory itself. 72.179.131.235 (talk) 17:57, 30 March 2014 (UTC) GornDD[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice towards recreation at a later date This articles exists only because of the highly unusual nature of the incident, a large commercial flight disappearing without a trace (so it is not comparable with other "Flight X conspiracy" article, which would be wp:otherstuff anyway). This created the flurry of "theories" in the next few days following the event. As things have become a bit clearer, with the plane having run out of fuel over the Southern Ocean, most if not all the "theories" in the article have been superseded. If no wreck/black box is recovered, it is possible it might become a mystery in the future, à la Amelia Earhart. However, we are not there yet, and having such an article in anticipation of such a phenomenon would be WP:CRYSTAL (and a separate article would then be motivated only if it would fulfil the requirements of Wikipedia:Content forking#Article_spinouts:_.22Summary_style.22_articles and Wikipedia:Summary style). walk victor falk talk 20:19, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Notoriety" is not a valid rationale for deletion. Northern Antarctica (₵) 20:50, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It adds nothing to the subject, just a list of "What could have happened" --151.229.65.209 (talk) 21:03, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • But if it's covered in reliable sources, a list of "What could have happened" isn't such a bad thing for Wikipedia, is it? Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 01:39, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are Rupert Murdoch and Rush Limbaugh air plane crash investigators? If Stephen Hawking makes a comment on who will win an Emmy, Oscar or Booker prize on CNN can I create a page of facts based on this? The main issue is that this information is not technically sound. Some sources are from state agency that are involved in other conflicts at this time. Could any of the government sources be spreading dis-information? For a page like this to be technically accurate, it takes time for people to investigate. The main page on the crash has a large disclaimer; this page has none. Certainly, it is notable as a social phenomena, in that people not qualified care to comment on it. It sets a bad precedent in my opinion. We can have wiki lynch mobbing of different current events as people push their opinion. This AfD maybe used for others to push this type of agenda. A small blurb in the main page saying that all of the uncertainty lead many to speculate (with these examples as a synopsis) in the main page makes sense. 71.19.161.130 (talk) 17:07, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Many of the keep vote have comments like my favorite theory, etc. I think it is very hard for people to cull the list with information available. As such, it is very difficult for editors to not put some sort of original research in the article. There are far too many possibilities at this point as there is little evidence that can refute them. 71.19.161.130 (talk) 17:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Subject appears to meet the WP:GNG. The article in its current version (much different then the version at the start of the AfD), is well sourced and verifiable. STATic message me! 21:25, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree completely. When I nominated this for deletion the article was barely sourced and had wacky theories that were barely present in the mainstream media. These new theories are much more present and do deserve to be kept. Snood1205 (talk) 23:29, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, wait, wait. Does that mean that you're willing to admit this topic is notable and therefore withdraw your nomination, User:Snood1205? Jinkinson talk to me 01:52, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the way it's looking right now, if he withdraws it, someone else'll AfD it, so just let it stand that the nominator now opposes deletions and let an uninvolved admin take care of it for sure. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 02:48, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From Wikipedia:Articles for deletion: "If no-one else has supported the deletion proposal and you change your mind about the nomination, you can withdraw it". Clearly not the case here, so the AfD continues. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:24, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are clearly many references from reliable sources showing that the WP:GNG is satisfied. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:29, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with main article Surely public responses and speculation about an event are valid encyclopaedic information, in that they were expressed, gained a following, and contributed to the unfolding of the response by many involved parties. Conspiracy theorists have their own sites, yes, but by encountering these theories on a reliable source like Wikipedia readers can contextualise the theories, ascertain their origins and judge their level of plausibility, rather than being taken in by unbalanced "hype". I realise Wiki is not a therapy session for the hysterical, but I repeat, this is valid information about responses to the event. Golden-elm (talk) 11:52, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or delete This page looks a lot like a POV fork. Happy Attack Dog (you rang?) 17:10, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A POV fork issue is avoided so long as the article offers a larger space to deal with a small part of the encompassing topic, and is accurately summarized at the main article per WP:summary style. For example, the main article can mention there are conspiracy theories, perhaps listing a few of the main ones in passing, and the sub-article gives room to explore them in detail that would be WP:UNDUE at the main article. Note this is true whether (as is currently the case) only the "conspiracy theories" are detailed, or (as I would prefer) all the explanations are considered in greater depth in the sub-article regardless of their categorization. Wnt (talk) 17:33, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and Keep I don't see that these conspiracy theories have developed enough legitimacy to be considered encyclopedic yet. Delete until some point in the future means...what exactly? How do we mensurate the day when a page like this will be substantial enough for inclusion? If we rename the page something along the lines of 'Speculation in Non-Mainstream Media About the Fate and Whereabouts of Malaysian Flight 370' which is what the page actually is then we could actually be discussing the merits of the page. The substance of this is that some conspiracy theorists publish a blog, make a YouTube Video or somebody who likes to keep their name in the media makes an off-hand remark and this now constitutes a "source"? Diego Garcia is only 4000 Km or so from one of the suspected courses of Flight 370 so perhaps the CIA is responsible? That doesn't strike me as being a conspiracy theory about Flight 370 as much as it is promoting conspiracy theories about Diego Garcia. There is an innate quality to conspiracy theorists that attempt to tie every event no matter how bizarre to a central hypothesis on their parts. The conspiracy theories regarding MH Flight 370 seem more akin to this connection principle than they do self-standing ideas that are researched and intellectually rigorous. JFK Conspiracy Theories and 7/7 Conspiracy Theories are reasonable since it would follow that a conspiracy was involved or at least there is enough research to support the idea that there was a conspiracy. This subject doesn't have anywhere enough research (nor will it possibly ever have enough lacking any better physical evidence) to progress to theories; we're still dealing with speculation at this point. There is a wide gulf between conspiracy theories and conspiracy speculation. In casual contexts we have blurred the lines. I would say, in my humble opinion, conspiracy theories are fine for an encyclopedic perspective but, perfunctory conspiracy speculation is superfluous. Lets call the page what it is for now and see if it can progress to legitimacy. "Speculation outside the mainstream media about MH Flight 370" might be brief enough a title. I would think reincorporating it under a similar heading in the main article would be reasonable too. Sonthert (talk) 19:21, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge Some people are so delete happy I dont get it. The event is significant. It inspired conspiracy theorists to come out of the hedges. Therefore, its significant and notable.--Metallurgist (talk) 22:46, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Article has been improving. It's not bad. It's sad that the media has chosen to cover the loonier ones, but they have. As Daniel Case has been noting ... our policies support a keep. The tone is appropriate. We cover the Apollo hoax, creationist, God and flat earth theories. And Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 conspiracy theories. Verifiability, not truth. Not IDONTLIKEIT. --Elvey (talk) 03:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, at this point. The article has come a long way since its nomination and now appears to meet notability guidelines, with dozens of good sources spanning the article. --CrunchySkies (talk) 05:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment to Daniel Case please read WP:BLUDGEON. Please refrain from arguing against every single delete vote, it is bordering on disruptive, especially in a big AfD like this one. LibStar (talk) 10:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG Delete - I see no need to have such a load of rubbish on an encyclopaedia. There is no proof of any of this so you'd may as well replace this article with double Dutch, it would be the same. Plus I think it is insensitive. Thєíríshwαrdєn - írísh αnd prσud 21:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete almost all these conspiracies are based on a few "experts" getting airtime in the media based on pure speculation and limited evidence. a lot of keep !votes use WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS when conspiracies relating to JFK and 9/11 have persisted in media coverage have persisted for years. yet the missing MH370 has been weeks. there is also no criterion for getting a "conspiracy" onto this list. and they may not even be conspiracies if in fact one of these turns out to be the real reason for MH370's disappearance. LibStar (talk) 23:47, 1 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. At this moment, amateur kickboxers are not notable unless they pass WP:GNG.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:14, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Miljan Vidović

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

Fails to meet WP:KICK which specifically says amateur kickboxing championships do not show notability and lacks the coverage necessary to meet WP:GNG. Mdtemp (talk) 22:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - Non notable kickboxer. Master Sun TzuMaster Sun Tzu 12:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ok this article is a stub but thats not a problem for me. He is a world champion in his sport. Just as the person who wins the smalles world championsip category in amateur boxing do deserve their place on wiki so does this boy. It is not a local championship but the world amateur championship as can be seen here List of WAKO Amateur World Championships. There is only one referance and it goes to an article in Kurir witch is one of the biggest newspaper in Serbia. Google after this boy gives alot of articles and many youtube clips. I think the main problem for this article is it is so small. If it could be added then alot more would be clearer.Stepojevac (talk) 16:00, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are rules for kickboxer notability, your wishes won't keep this article on wikipedia. Rules are here: Kickboxing task force. Master Sun Tzu Talk 19:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After reading the rules it does clearly say this article should be deleted but still I think sometimes an exception could be made. After all this boxer is rulling world champion and european champion. After looking at more articles it seems he has won everything there is to win in Europe when it comes to amateur kickboxing. I do admit its not a big sport in Europe so the number of articles from major sources are not much. He is not amateur anymore so I guess this article will come up again if he keeps the pace. Still I think an exception could be made here already now.Stepojevac (talk) 19:14, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are hundreds amateur kickboxers who won medals at WAKO championships, why is Vidovic special? He is not so article will be deleted... Master Sun Tzu Talk 20:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per WP:KICK - its an amateur event.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:34, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He won a medal, world amateur championship , that is notable. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 17:00, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here are rules for kickboxer notability: Kickboxing task force. Amateur kickboxer is not notable. Master Sun Tzu Talk 19:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is a one-sourced article on an amateur sport with thousands of participants. --PDX er1 (talk) 23:17, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Amateur kick boxer, not yet notable. Jordanee155 (talk) 15:20, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. --DThomsen8 (talk) 16:42, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:KICK and no other notability shown.204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:17, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paramotor Reflex Wing Profile

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

Original research; cannot be verified by reliable, independent sources Drm310 (talk) 22:33, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unsourced OR. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:25, 25 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete for multiple reasons ranging from WP:OR to no WP:RS.LM2000 (talk) 08:08, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 01:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fresh start

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

Disputed PROD, reason was " A potentially pleasant embryo essay or dictionary definition, but there is nothing notable about it. However pleasant it may be it is not material for an encyclopaedia." Since the PROD the article has been expanded into a well referenced essay/Dicdef, but it is not notable and has no place here. Wiktionary maybe, Wikipedia, no Fiddle Faddle 22:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Article is under construction. Topic is notable, because I was able to find plenty of sources from different individual parties. Dictionaries would not be able to cover what Wikipedia can. --Mr. Guye (talk) 22:25, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That you can find sources does not guarantee it a place in Wikipedia. The existence of references is not the same as notability. We require notability first and foremost and then verification of that notability in reliable sources. Whether the article is under construction or not, this topic is not notable now and will not be notable when you have finished. This is a dicdef and an essay. Fiddle Faddle 22:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merriam-Webster doesn't have it, yet I am sure they are aware of its existence. What does that tell you? Mr. Guye (talk) 22:43, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It tells me that it is not even worth defining Fiddle Faddle 22:48, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And how is this not notable? I am sure many people have heard of it anyways. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:44, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read WP:GNG. That one has heard of something does not make it notable. Fiddle Faddle 22:48, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly which one does it allegedly fail? Mr. Guye (talk) 22:54, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Because I already read them and it passes them all.Mr. Guye (talk) 22:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, even if it is just a dicdef, why can't the article exist for the concept? Mr. Guye (talk) 23:00, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with the nom. Obviously the term "fresh start" is common and well known, but Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The article simply defines the term with no notable substance. Scarlettail (talk) 23:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But what about the concept! Sure, a dictionary can just define a concept, but it can't go into detail or provide multiple examples of the concept. It does not allow someone to completely comprehend the concept. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:24, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTDICT. ansh666 05:36, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:56, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, It's also a charity in Scotland... and don't forget the cows. (But you might also need to consider New Deal?) Martinevans123 (talk) 21:59, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep, DICDEF. Delete. Drmies (talk) 01:28, 30 March 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 snow keep. (non-admin closure) ansh666 05:37, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rustlers (film)

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

This article should be deleted because, as I said before it has got too little information, too little notability, too little neutrality. A movie would have more info if it was notable. --Mr. Guye (talk) 21:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Alt title:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Italian:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Yugoslavia:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
  • Keep per being sourcable as an early film in the careers of John Ford, Pete Morrison, Helen Gibson, and Hoot Gibson and being an important part in the career of the individuals involved, as well as being part of American cinematic history. To the nom, we do not delete articles for being stubby. A 95-year-old silent film will not remain in the headlines, will likely have been screened multiple times more-than-5-years after initial release, and will likely have been part of retrospectives. We best serve the project by using common sense and some diligence to look to WP:NF#Other evidence of notability and determine how they might be improved through regular editing. Schmidt, Michael Q. 02:44, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per Schmidt and per WP:COMMONSENSE. Cavarrone 06:33, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Taking into account the age of the film along with the article's current references (and the potential for others, such as those listed in the Levy ref - p.75), this looks in my view to be a reasonable enough stub.  Gong show 07:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the excellent expansion work done by Michael. John Ford was one of the most notable film directors of all time, and it's crazy to suggest that this film simply isn't notable. I'm interested what the nom means by "too little neutrality" in their arguement for deletion though. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:36, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Me too... specially as the sourced nominated version was neutral in the extreme. It may simply be his inexperience,[3][4] something only time will address. Schmidt, Michael Q. 07:46, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per Cavarrone & MichaelQSchmidt. Given the importance of John Ford, I can't see how deleting this could possibly improve the encyclopedia. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:22, 25 March 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 Travie McCoy. (until more reliable sources can be found) Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:53, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep On Keeping On (song)

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

WP:NSONG newly released single, no charting, no significant reviews. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:43, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. News of the video's release has been picked up by MTV [5], Fuse [6], Idolator [7], and AltPress [8]. I'm neutral on whether there's enough material right this second to warrant a standalone article. It's likely this will receive more coverage in the coming days/weeks. Common sense vs crystal ball aside, at the least, a redirect (to Travie McCoy) would seem a better option than deletion.  Gong show 00:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Travie McCoy until enough in-depth coverage of the song (outside of album reviews) from reliable sources is available to expand beyond a stub. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 19:08, 31 March 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. postdlf (talk) 18:44, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Games with Gold games

List of Games with Gold games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · [9])
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOT no reason to list games given away for free for 1/2 month each, when there is no way to get them anymore. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have a similar list for games offered through PlayStation Plus, a competing service to Xbox Live. If that list meets the wiki's guidelines, I don't see why this doesn't. Jotamide (talk) 21:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't see how not being able to obtain something anymore is grounds for deleting the article about it. All these games are documented in sources when they are added to Gold: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14] etc. The current sources are bad, but they can be improved. Samwalton9 (talk) 00:14, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; we still have things like List of Humble Bundles. It's slightly trivial, but it's somewhat important to the games' history. Tezero (talk) 00:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The members of this list have significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) Coverage from Polygon alone ([15]) shows the notability of the updates (also see eurogamer.net, ign.com, or other WP:VG/RS sites), and a list format serves the topic better than an article. WP:NOT is not an argument by itself—a piece of the policy needs to be referenced. As for the PSN list, yes, "other stuff" exists, but an argument should be made for its own merits (though I foresee a similar verdict for that topic). czar ♔ 00:23, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - For reasons listed above, as well as the fact that the program is frequently mentioned in articles comparing Sony and Microsoft's offerings, and is therefore relevant to the games industry as a whole. See here: [16] [17] EDIT: While my previous points still stand, I will say that the article shouldn't have been released in its current state for numerous reasons, and the Draft version should e kept while this is deleted. It can be added back to the main namespace once its improved, albeit with a different name as the current title isn't particularly fitting. --Nicereddy (talk) 01:05, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like Jotamide had been working on a concurrent draft since before your draft. If anything, you might want to histmerge, but there's no need to send the article to draftspace since AfD is about whether the topic itself is notable. The sources can always be added later. czar ♔ 02:33, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've apologized to Jotamide for the miscommunication, moved the page to a better title (List of Games with Gold games), replaced the article content with that of the draft, and requested an article merge. All should be good now, assuming the article isn't deleted. --Nicereddy (talk) 03:18, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment There is no doubt that the program itself may be notable. The individual games released under the program are not. Is there coverage of that? Sure. WP:ROUTINE coverage. There's also coverage of every local high school football game. There is no lasting encyclopedic value to say that X years ago, for 15 days a particular game that was way past its peak of popularity was given away tolive subscribers. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm. You raise an interesting point in that Games with Gold itself might be worth an article, with this list incorporated to it. There's quite a lot of coverage of Games with Gold itself which could be used to write a semi decent article around this list: [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24] and more. Thoughts? Samwalton9 (talk) 16:35, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it could also support an article (which should be a summary-style expansion from Xbox Live), but I recommend keeping the list separate since it would be unwieldy in such an article. czar ♔ 18:16, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • An 18 item list is hardly unwiedly in an article that would be devoted to discussing those 18 items. I definitely think there should be an article about it, and that article should include the list. --Odie5533 (talk) 22:59, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - For reasons listed above. —Dell9300 (talk) 17:54, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - List of Instant Game Collection games (North America) is also up for deletion and considering it is heavily related to this, the reasons for and against deletion will no-doubt be similar. (discussion page) —Dell9300 (talk) 17:54, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Czar; there's enough documentation to pass WP:LISTN. ansh666 05:52, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move over Games with Gold to encourage expanding an article about them. --Odie5533 (talk) 22:59, 26 March 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. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Football in Dehradun

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

Contested PROD. Original concern is still valid "Article about football in a random area. Fails notability." JMHamo (talk) 21:12, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 21:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Looking at the article, it seems the subject could be notable, the area conatins some of the major clubs in India and as would be expected have won national competitions. However, I am not sure that the idea of "football in Dehradun" as a subject has received the required level of coverage. Concerned that the current article is more a mix of original research and synthesis. Fenix down (talk) 09:29, 25 March 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. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky Rebel

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

Deprodded BLP, fails WP:MUSICBIO as solo musical artist, fails WP:NACTOR as an actor. I can't find sources to support that subject meets WP:BASIC. Sam Sailor Sing 21:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky Rebel was previously deleted under G11 on 27 February 2011, cf. Deletion log. The same evening the article Show Pony (MCR) is created. It fails WP:GNG and is included in this nomination. Sam Sailor Sing 21:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Show Pony (MCR) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Sing 21:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Sing 21:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Sing 21:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Sing 21:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have previously tried to delete this a few times, and I agree with the nominator. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:49, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both, not notable. Show Pony has a textbook example of a list of totally useless references.TheLongTone (talk) 23:17, 31 March 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

William Fishbaugh

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

Only two people listed and I could not find any others. Since William A is the only one with an article, it should point to him and a hatnote added. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 21:03, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even a hatnote would be an overkill. The defender of the Alamo is clearly not notable but will show up in searches. So basically, I think this should return to the redirect I created 3 year ago. Pichpich (talk) 22:26, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Only one with an article solely on them isn't necessarily relevant - you would need to establish that William A. was the clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, with evidence. A hatnote would be useful if WIlliam A. was found to be the primary. Boleyn (talk) 17:46, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: two valid uses, no indication which one is primary: a hatnote to William A on the Alamo page would be messy; status quo looks fine. PamD 18:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I converted the redirect to List of Alamo defenders to this dab page as in my judgment there was not a strong case for either being primary i.e one is part of a referenced list, the other is not known only as William Fishbaugh. If the article was William Fishbaugh (photographer) I would probably have moved it to the undabbed name and added a hatnote (see e.g. Justin Bailey). Tassedethe (talk) 00:49, 26 March 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 Andy García#Hemmingway project. The page is well referenced but all the refs confirm the film is not out of pre-production and thus WP:NFF is a valid argument for deletion. If anything, it would seem to have gone back from even that stage. SpinningSpark 14:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hemingway & Fuentes

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

per WP:CRYSTAL LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The article has references and does not seem to violate any of the rules. The only problem is that it is an orphan. It seems to meet notability. Snood1205 (talk) 20:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I created the article when I saw it was in post production and now it's back to being at "announced", hasnt gone anywhere in over a year. LADY LOTUS • TALK 22:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Andy García#Hemmingway project. While it might have been better in a user sandbox as a user draft than in article space before filming as been confirmed, the topic of this film's production has enough coverage [25] so that we can speak about it elsewhere until WP:NFF paragraph three is met by a confirmation of filming. Undelete or recreate once filming has been confirmed. Schmidt, Michael Q. 03:56, 25 March 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. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:00, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Hayes Award for Outstanding Supporting Actress, Resident Play

Helen Hayes Award for Outstanding Supporting Actress, Resident Play (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence this local acting award meets WP:GNG, prod removed. Delete Secret account 17:04, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buffbills7701 20:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:GNG. no significant third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 06:51, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG.LM2000 (talk) 08:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SK#1, the nominator withdrew their deletion nomination, and there are no outstanding !delete votes. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 00:04, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rewari- Rohtak Train

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

PROD removed by IP, no reason. This seems to be an unremarkable train service. TheLongTone (talk) 20:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Why was this prodded for deletion only twenty-five minutes after it was created? [26] --Oakshade (talk) 02:39, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Not only does this service easily pass WP:GNG with very in-depth coverage from reliable sources like The Times of India, Zee News and The Indian Express [27][28][29][30] (and these are just English language sources in a very heavily Hindi-language dominated country), but this is typical train line that would never even be considered for deletion of it was in the United States or the United Kingdom, similar to the Providence/Stoughton Line or Ellesmere Port to Warrington Line. Might this be a case of systemic bias? --Oakshade (talk) 02:39, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I strongly support Oakshade. It is a well referenced article with valuable information. There is no good reason for deletion of this article. The article should be renamed 'Rewari-Rohtak line'. - Chandan Guha (talk) 04:26, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done --Oakshade (talk) 05:34, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw nomination, but rename since (as not clear in original article) this is a major infrastructure project.TheLongTone (talk) 09:27, 27 March 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. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:02, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dirty electricity

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

"Dirty electricity may be the result of secretly installed power line bugs to spy business, government offices, or a somebody's home"??? A POV fork of Electromagnetic radiation and health and a product of the sock farm currently spreading electromagnetic radiation paranoia and pushing metering products. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC) LuckyLouie (talk) 19:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as it is now. Before March 2014 this was s disambiguation page giving three differnt conepts that were allsometimes called "dirty electricity". Not too many Google Books hits on this phrase so it may well be undue weight to disambiguate. Context will be more useful to the reader in deciding if she wants to know more about human health or about keeping the buzz out of the stereo or smog out of the sky; the phrase has several referents. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Now that you've removed the fringe stuff and restored the article to a disambig page I don't see "dirty electricity" mentioned at any of the disambig articles, so I still recommend a delete. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:44, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nominator has withdrawn and no arguments for deletion. We can let editors able to translate sources assist in improvments to the article. Schmidt, Michael Q. 08:50, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let It Be (2004 film)

Let It Be (2004 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unremarkable film. No sources, no indication of notability. Nothing to suggest it even exists. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do the interlanguage links have a say in thisWikiOriginal-9 (talk)

No. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:27, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Being "Unremarkable" is not a reason for deletion, and "no sources" is not either. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:04, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But you happened to skip the part where I said "no indication of notability". Read it again, so it's clear in your mind. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:27, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Comment: Not being a reader of Taiwanese, and so not able to search for sources, I will await input from those Wikipedians better able than I to look for and offer source. We do have a great difficult in that this film was apparently not screened in the west as either Bô-bí-lo̍k or as Let it be. Sorry Lgnuts, until hearing form Chinese-reading Wikipedians, I am reluctant to ignore WP:CSB. Schmidt, Michael Q. 08:18, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I did have a look at the Chinese articles, I'm not even sure they are the correct interwikis. I really don't like seeing things like this being deleted either. Now, if I can teach myself Taiwanese/Chinese in the next few days... Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:44, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - Look at the zh.wp article linked to by interwiki zh:無米樂-- there are clearly many references for this [31]. One issue may be they are using min-nan for the phonetization which is not common. So searching in Chinese (無米樂) brings about lots more results. I can help shore up some of that missing info, but it's clear this is notable enough, and has references. It's been featured on LinkTV, which is one of the largest documentary distributors in the US [32] and it has won a number of awards. -- Fuzheado | Talk 15:58, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Nice work, Fuzheado. Happy to withdraw it based on the work you've done on the article. Thanks! Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:02, 25 March 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. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsey Meadows

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

Fails PORNBIO and lacks any reliable third party source to pass GNG. Was deprodded without improvement or explanation. Spartaz Humbug! 18:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails PORNBIO without award wins. Fails GNG: no substantial reliable source coverage found in search. • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Totally fails the relevant notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:18, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails GNG. Remarkable how porn bios all have horrible sourcing and great pictures, is it not? Carrite (talk) 00:52, 25 March 2014 (UTC) // Wikia is thattaway --->[reply]
  • Delete per nominator's right-on-target analysis. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:45, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails GNG and PORNBIO.LM2000 (talk) 08:15, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Concur with nominator's assessment. Finnegas (talk) 12:42, 27 March 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) Northern Antarctica (₵) 00:29, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kuldeep Pawar

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

A stub article for over 6 years, and has yet to expand beyond three sources, one of which is his obituary. Doesn't seem to meet notability. Rusted AutoParts 18:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep that's not a good reason for deletion. instead of nominating it for deletion how about you expand the article by finding more sources and since the person just died I'm sure more information about the persons life will be reported. Redsky89 (talk) 15:52, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep: No proper rationale provided for deletion. Nominator should take a look at thousands of articles at Category:Stub-Class articles. Plus, Times of India calls him "veteran" in their article "Veteran actor Kuldeep Pawar passes away". §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:39, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Veteran actor in Marathi and Hindi films and TV. Various newspapers covered his death [33] --Redtigerxyz Talk 11:10, 27 March 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: already redirected to High-performance_teams per the discussion. Black Kite (talk) 19:14, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Super-team

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

appears to be a non notable business jargon neologism. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a significant term when discussing collaboration among high ranking professionals on a project that requires high level expertise in multiple areas. Stmullin (talk) 17:48, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't. None of the sources appear to mention "super team" that I could tell. In reviewing the first cite, which appears to be someone's college term paper, it appears that most of the material in the article was copied word for word. I've deleted the article as a copyright infringement accordingly. It's been a while since I've closed an AFD, so if someone could do that for me. Kuru (talk) 02:02, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a to do list and links to existing articles. This article is not specific to one industry so can not be construed as jargon. It is a leadership concept as well as a term. 174.99.59.109 (talk) 19:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are no copyright infringments in the article . . . if I could ban you I most certainly would do just that. 174.99.59.109 (talk) 15:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment this article topic appears to be a duplicate subject of High-performance_teams and should probably be redirected there. It qualifies for A10 imo, but as the G12 was declined by Smartse I won't renom. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently A10 should not be used where a redirect is a valid result, so nm on that point, but still redirect Gaijin42 (talk) 17:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • REDIRECTED per https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Stmullin&diff=601232768&oldid=601232206 Gaijin42 (talk) 18:58, 25 March 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. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DigitalChalk

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

This article is about a piece of web software that fails WP:N and WP:WEB as it hasn't received significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources, nor has it made a significant impact in its particular industry. The article has been puffed up with numerous references to paid articles, press releases, and mentions in run-of-the-mill internet articles, but I wasn't able to find any sort of in-depth, significant coverage to indicate notability as per our relevant guidelines. Note that the author and sole contributor has a history of creating promotional articles. ThemFromSpace 16:43, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom and salt. Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD without improvement. Independent sources are not optional. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 24 March 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:50, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who, What, Wear

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

Non-notable online magazine lacking non-trivial support. Fails WP:WEB. reddogsix (talk) 15:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:35, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:35, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - passes WP:WEB per coverage in Glamour (linked in article), Chicago Tribune, Advertising Age, Women's Wear Daily, and the multitude of other sources available via Google search. Suggest the nominator review WP:BEFORE. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Given Nikki's sources I think it now passes the GNG bar.LM2000 (talk) 08:15, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well sourced, notable, don't see a reason for deletion. Adamh4 (talk) 21:36, 27 March 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 The Spirit of Christmas (short film)#Avenging Conscience. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Avenging Conscience

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

Non-notable company. Just one of Trey Parker's many holding companies, it is non-notable given the fact that a search finds that it is not directly involved in South Park, that credit goes to South Park Digital Studios Inc., a company owned by Parker and Matt Stone and to Comedy Central. Further looking on Google and Yahoo! yielded a less then 1% result yield, most of the result that were about Avenging Conscience was data about the company itself, i.e. filings with the California Secretary of State, corporate officers and sibling companies but no actual film, television or stage credits. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 15:11, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As far as I can tell, the company was only used for the films Orgazmo and Cannibal! The Musical ([34]). I can't find where the company was involved with anything else that the two have done and from what I can see, they only used it for their earliest, non-South Park work. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:40, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait, I did find that the company was responsible for the original short films that launched the South Park franchise but they were not involved in the South Park series after that point as far as I can tell. From what I can see, the company was formed in the very early days when Parker and Stone didn't have the studio backing they do now. Once they got together with Comedy Central, the company seems to have stopped producing because there was no need for it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:55, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The fact that Avenging Conscience has six films in the can does not make it notable. Hell my brother-in-law has been working in the entertainment industry for 25 years as a producer and director and yet he and his projects (Which BTW have had worldwide distribution) never have been included in Wikipedia, you know why because there is no notability. Avenging Conscience is a throw-away company which produced six projects and then shutdown with Parker and Stone moving on to bigger and better things. If they had continued and produced more films or media under that banner then yes I would say that probably it is notable but as it stands right now it is not. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 04:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • My biggest concern is that this should be mentioned somewhere, but I'm not sure where to merge this information to. I'm leaning towards merging the basic information to The Spirit of Christmas (short film) and commenting that the company went on to produce two films and a mini-documentary before its creators moved on to other stuff. Most of the information seems to mention it in relation to the SP shorts, so I'm thinking that it would be a reasonable merge. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:32, 25 March 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:46, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

J. Paul Emerson

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

Notability claim is based only on a a single event, does not meet guidelines for biographies. RadioFan (talk) 23:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There were at least two notable stints on (and firings from) different stations, so BIO1E doesn't really apply. He received national coverage, as reflected in the sources in the article (Time, NYT, Christian Science Monitor, AsianWeek, AP, multiple books), as well as international coverage such as The Herald (Scotland) [35] and The Independent [36]. Overall I think our coverage of radio history is better with coverage of this than without it. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:48, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment the references listed here are about the firing or behind a paywall. Not clear how this demonstrates notability beyond this one event.--RadioFan (talk) 01:11, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He had a career at many stations in major radio markets and the incident in question rendered him emblematic of a certain type of talk radio as historicized cinematically by Oliver Stone.Brainplanner (talk) 17:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Do you have any examples of reliable sources covering this person at those other stations?--RadioFan (talk) 01:11, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is the epitome of a person notable for one event.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - Rather Emerson said many controversial things over a period of time which received sustained coverage, witness the Scottish Herald piece. And that some things not worth repeating bear repeating Brainplanner (talk) 23:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep based on potential sourcing, but this stub needs quite a bit of work to be a real article; for example, there's nothing about him except for the firings. Bearian (talk) 20:35, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- article needs work but clearly a significant figure from that period of radioMasterknighted (talk) 20:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Hahc21 14:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this the same guy mentioned on page 30 here? Because that might help, as he was an awards finalist. In addition, the NY Times had an article not already cited here remarking on Emerson as showcasing right-wing media. If what I'm reading serves well, then I'll say Keep it. I don't want to add the sources in unless confirmed that they're worthwhile, though. GRUcrule (talk) 19:08, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply It is indeed the Same guy and the sources also serves well to show time at the stationBrainplanner (talk) 20:33, 2 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ellie Soufi

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

Not yet notable according to WP:MUSICBIO or WP:NACTOR. She released a single with a notable producer, but it did not chart or receive significant coverage from WP:Reliable sources, and since that single she's only been doing covers on YouTube. I re-created the article following a speedy delete A7, because I'd seen some coverage online. But having dug around online to find press coverage on her, could only find local press articles saying that she'd had a role in a feature film. It must have been a very minor role, because I can't find her mentioned in the film credits or the soundtrack credits. WP:TOOSOON. Ruby Murray 13:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ruby Murray 13:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ruby Murray 13:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • She is an actress that is in many youtube videos, she has her own website, she is coming out with another single this year, u4ria was on x factor, and her single has over a million views — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chasesoufi (talk • contribs) 14:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article says they were not on X Factor. It says "U4RIA which auditioned to the US edition of The X Factor in its third season but didn't pass through." There's no citation that they even auditioned, and I can't find anything about U4RIA online from WP:Reliable sources. Ruby Murray 14:46, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I added a citation for u4ria and what i meant was they didn't go far. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chasesoufi (talk • contribs) 19:46, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. The X-factor ref does not even mention her and the Memeburn ref, which supposedly references facts about her first single, has only a very passing mention and a link to a now-deleted Youtube video. SpinningSpark 16:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with others before me, looks like a classic case of WP:TOOSOON here. Delete it for now. GRUcrule (talk) 19:11, 2 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 Green Party of England and Wales. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Policies for a Sustainable Society

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

Wikiepdia is not the place for article of non widely notable documents of specific political parties and the wider notability of this subject matter is not demonstrated or established by the article. Sport and politics (talk) 11:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per • Gene93k. As the standing maniufesto of a small political party, it has litlte significance outside (or separate from) the party. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The policy document has non-trivial coverage in several book sources, including some that are not directly on the subject of the Green party such as International Encyclopedia of Environmental Politics and Political Parties and the European Union. There are also a few Scholar hits, mostly behind paywalls but some of them look like they may be substantial. As a widely cited document it is clearly notable and there is probably enough written about it to form a decent article. The green manifesto has had an impact on current political policies and enviromental thinking way beyond the electoral achievements of the Green Party. This document apparently represents the ancestry of that thinking and as such sets it apart from run-of-the-mill party-political policy documents. SpinningSpark 17:36, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think Spinningspark's remarks are compelling, but they make me ask: Why can't we use that source to help strengthen the Green Party of England and Wales article by merging it? It could get a paragraph, no issue, and Real progress (the one other article listed for Party Platform) could both make up a solid section on the Green Party page. GRUcrule (talk) 19:15, 2 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. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Spaven

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

Non-notable activist. Previously a parliamentary candidate and a Green Party Principle Speaker. These activities do not establish notability for the subject, Sport and politics (talk) 11:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:32, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:32, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:43, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Comment - (this has potential for a merge) to Green Party of England and Wales, which presently does not mention the subject. NorthAmerica1000 11:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete only a leader of a sub-national party, never held elective office.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:06, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - has not held a significant position, no evidence of notability from media coverage (plenty of articles by him, but I can't find any about him). Warofdreams talk 00:44, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Until 1992, the Green Party were a minor pressure group with six Principal Speakers. Since then there have been two. On previous AFDs, I have taken the two that the two Principal Speakers were notable, but the earlier six were not. However, we might merge a short summary (e.g. 1-2 sentences) into Principal Speaker#Incumbents prior to 1992 (six elected annually), for each of the six. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:42, 27 March 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 Tehreek-e-Khatme Nabuwwat. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Majlis Tahaffuz Khatme Nabuwwat

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

Single-sourced POV fork of Tehreek-e-Khatme Nabuwwat, with largely similar text. Conversion to redirect was reverted, PROD was removed, so here we are. I've been tempted to just nuke this under A10, as was originally requested, but feel that it could be a valid redirect. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:35, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:35, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:35, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per this source (pg 344-345), that says that it is the same group. Started as "Tehreek e Khatme Nabuwwat", renamed to "Majlis e Khatm e Nabuwwat" and later as "Majlis e Tahaffuz Khatm e Nabuwwat". -- SMS Talk 12:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:35, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Due to the evidence provided of the organizations being the same thing. That it even had to come this far is a bit silly; it seems someone has a POV ax to grind here. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:37, 25 March 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. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Berreen

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

non-notable academic and political activist. Only claim to notability is being a Green Party of England and Wales principle speaker. This is not a notable office in its own right and does not establish notability of the subject in question. Sport and politics (talk) 11:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 March 24. —cyberbot I NotifyOnline 11:12, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Comment - (this has potential for a merge) to Green Party of England and Wales, which presently does not mention the subject. NorthAmerica1000 11:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Note that Berreen does not appear to have ever been Principal Speaker. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC) Oh yes, he was, but only as one of six. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:16, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The subject of the article is listed in the Green Party of England and Wales navigation box as having been so. By the fact that it is not even mentioned on the subject matters page shows the low level of notability that post holds, if any real notability at all. Sport and politics (talk) 13:54, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Unless someone can show that he undertook significnat published research so as to qualify him as a notable academic, I do not think we can keep this article. Since the party did not win any major election until 1999, being one of six Principal Speakers prior to the number being reduced to two in 1992 hardly makes him notable. Possibly merge one sentence to the relevant section of that article. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:23, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Has done nothing to make him noable, lacks coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence that he has held a significant post or received significant coverage in reliable sources. Warofdreams talk 00:43, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Wright (British politician)

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

Non-notable academic and politician. Being the Principle speaker of the green party of England and Wales, a parliamentary candidate and a University academic are not individually notable and collectively do not create or establish notability. Sport and politics (talk) 10:50, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:46, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:46, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As joint Principal Speaker, she was effectively the joint party leader. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:46, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This has potential to be selectively merged to Green Party of England and Wales and Cambridge City Council, respectively. NorthAmerica1000 11:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -The holding of this post of Principal Speaker does not make the subject notable. They have to have wider notability established by reliable third party sources. Simply holding one post in a small political party is not enough to make an individual notable (yes the Green Party are a small party, one MP two MEPs and a few councillors here and there, does not make them a medium or big party like UKIP, the Liberal Democrats, the Conservatives or Labour, etc.). In the same way holding municipal elected office in England does not make an individual notable. The post itself can be notable by its history, or high profile office holders, etc. in the same way the office of leader of a Municipal Council is potentially notable as an office. That though does not qualify the holders of that office for notability or inclusion in Wikiepida. There is also no reasoning as to how that post makes the individual holders notable, there is simply use of: it is just because it is, to justify inclusion on Wikipedia which is absurd. Sport and politics (talk) 00:20, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As one of two Principal Speakers of the Green Party (by then represetned in European Parliament), she was certainly notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The positions held do not equal to notablitity.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - leader of a significant national party. Sources provide some evidence of notability, although there should be some stronger ones available from broadcast media. Warofdreams talk 00:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:29, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peg Alexander

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

Non-notable politician. Being the principle speaker of the Green Party of England and Wales and being a parliamentary candidate do not qualify for notability purposes. Sport and politics (talk) 10:45, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:50, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:50, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As joint Principal Speaker she was effectively joint party leader. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:50, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -The holding of this post of Principal Speaker does not make the subject notable. They have to have wider notability established by reliable third party sources. Simply holding one post in a small political party is not enough to make an individual notable (yes the Green Party are a small party, one MP two MEPs and a few councillors here and there, does not make them a medium or big party like UKIP, the Liberal Democrats, the Conservatives or Labour, etc.). In the same way hold municipal elected office in England does not make an individual notable. The post itself can be notable by its history, or high profile office holders, etc. in the same way the office of leader of a Municipal Council is potentially notable as an office. That though does not qualify the holders of that office for notability or inclusion in Wikiepida. There is also no reasoning as to how that post makes the individual holders notable, there is simply use of other stuff exists as a means of justification in this case, which is inappropriate in this case. Sport and politics (talk) 14:06, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm afraid I completely disagree. The Green Party, while not in the front rank, is certainly in the second tier of British political parties, along with such parties as UKIP and Plaid Cymru and has been for some time. In my opinion, its leaders are notable. That, also in my opinion, is common sense, and there is nothing absurd about common sense. What is, however, absurd is to prefer dogma ("nothing in Wikipedia specifically says they are notable so they can't be notable") over common sense. Remember WP:BURO? -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:41, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As one of two Principal Speakers of the Green Party (by then represetned in European Parliament), she was certainly notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - joint leader of a significant national party. Article already has a couple of decent sources providing evidence of notability, anyone with access to printed media of the period could find more. Warofdreams talk 00:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Being in the leadership of this party is not enough to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:27, 25 March 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. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Clark

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

Non-notable politician. Being a parliamentary candidate an elected municipal councillor and a principle speaker of the Green Party of England and Wales are not notable individually or when taken collectively and do not establish notability of the subject in question. Sport and politics (talk) 10:35, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As Principal Speaker she was effectively party leader. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Comment - (this has potential for a merge) to Green Party (UK), which presently does not mention the subject. NorthAmerica1000 11:58, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -The holding of this post of Principal Speaker does not make the subject notable. They have to have wider notability established by reliable third party sources. Simply holding one post in a small political party is not enough to make an individual notable (yes the Green Party are a small party, one MP two MEPs and a few councillors here and there, does not make them a medium or big party like UKIP, the Liberal Democrats, the Conservatives or Labour, etc.). In the same way hold municipal elected office in England does not make an individual notable. The post itself can be notable by its history, or high profile office holders, etc. in the same way the office of leader of a Municipal Council is potentially notable as an office. That though does not qualify the holders of that office for notability or inclusion in Wikiepida. There is also no reasoning as to how that post makes the individual holders notable, there is simply use of other stuff exists as a means of justification in this case, which is inappropriate in this case. Sport and politics (talk) 14:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm afraid I completely disagree. The Green Party, while not in the front rank, is certainly in the second tier of British political parties, along with such parties as UKIP and Plaid Cymru and has been for some time. In my opinion, its leaders are notable. That, also in my opinion, is common sense, and there is nothing absurd about common sense. What is, however, absurd is to prefer dogma ("nothing in Wikipedia specifically says they are notable so they can't be notable") over common sense. Remember WP:BURO? -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:41, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - I am almost certain you and I Necrothesp have no common ground and will never reach a compromise on this issue. I see this individual as clearly failing under WP:DISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTABLE per WP:POLITICIAN. This individual is not inherently notable just for holding the office of principle speaker of the Green Party. The individual notability of this subject must clearly be demonstrated or here will be an endless stream of indiscriminate article creation for the leader and deputy leader of every political party in the UK who has ever had an MP is the deputy leader or Chairman etc. of the Independent Community and Health Concern Party notable. I think not even though that party had an MP in Richard Taylor. Sport and politics (talk) 19:36, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As one of two Principal Speakers of the Green Party (by then represetned in European Parliament), she was certainly notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Did not hold any office of note.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - joint leader of a significant national party (took fourth place in the European election while she was party leader). Article has one source providing evidence of notability, anyone with access to printed media of the period could find more. Warofdreams talk 00:24, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - That all well and good and please do not let this AfD stop you adding sources which establish notability. Until those sources are added that in circumspect and assumption that they exist. Until the sources establish notability are found the article fails to establish the individual is notable. Sport and politics (talk) 00:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Subject was effectively the head of a well known European political party. That establishes notability. --PDX er1 (talk) 19:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - What is meant by 'well known European political party' - that is highly opinionated and subjective and needs some serious backing up to hold any real water. Sport and politics (talk) 20:30, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do I detect a certain prejudice against the Green Party? User:Sport and politics seems to have put a very large number of Green Party members up for AfD. The statement that they may not be a well-known political party is simply laughable.TheLongTone (talk) 23:29, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Do i detect an assumption of bad faith on your behalf talk:TheLongTone on motives of these nominations. I must ask for the unwarranted personal attack to be withdrawn as it is innapropriate and addresses nothing to do with the merits of the discussion at hand. I strongly suggest that the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia is read before making partisan political assumptions. Also claims they are no "well known" are taken out of context. The post of being one of two "Principle Speaker" in a small political party that has only ever had one MP never run a local authority as a majority party and only ever had 2 MEPs (3 people in total) hardly makes the post one which garners notability. So yes the green party are not a "well known" party they are just a party heard of like the BNP, Respect, the NAtional Health Action Party etc etc. Sport and politics (talk) 10:23, 2 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) Northern Antarctica (₵) 00:32, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Woodin

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

Non-notable politician. Being the principle speaker of the Green Party of England and Wales and holding municipal elected office in England do nt qualify for notability purposes. The individual has a road in Oxford named after them but again this on its own is not notable as lots of roads are named after many individuals in England. Individual none of these events and activities are individually notable and nor are they collectively notable. Sport and politics (talk) 10:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. As joint Principal Speaker he was effectively joint party leader. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:54, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:54, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:54, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Comment - (this has potential for a merge) to Green Party of England and Wales, and possibly selectively to Oxford. NorthAmerica1000 12:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -The holding of this post of Principal Speaker does not make the subject notable. They have to have wider notability established by reliable third party sources. Simply holding one post in a small political party is not enough to make an individual notable (yes the Green Party are a small party, one MP two MEPs and a few councillors here and there, does not make them a medium or big party like UKIP, the Liberal Democrats, the Conservatives or Labour, etc.). In the same way hold municipal elected office in England does not make an individual notable. The post itself can be notable by its history, or high profile office holders, etc. in the same way the office of leader of a Municipal Council is potentially notable as an office. That though does not qualify the holders of that office for notability or inclusion in Wikiepida. There is also no reasoning as to how that post makes the individual holders notable, there is simply use of other stuff exists as a means of justification in this case, which is inappropriate in this case. Sport and politics (talk) 14:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm afraid I completely disagree. The Green Party, while not in the front rank, is certainly in the second tier of British political parties, along with such parties as UKIP and Plaid Cymru and has been for some time. In my opinion, its leaders are notable. That, also in my opinion, is common sense, and there is nothing absurd about common sense. What is, however, absurd is to prefer dogma ("nothing in Wikipedia specifically says they are notable so they can't be notable") over common sense. Remember WP:BURO? -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:41, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - I am almost certain you and I Necrothesp have no common ground and will never reach a compromise on this issue. I see this individual as clearly failing under WP:DISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTABLE per WP:POLITICIAN. This individual is not inherently notable just for holding the office of principle speaker of the Green Party. The individual notability of this subject must clearly be demonstrated or here will be an endless stream of indiscriminate article creation for the leader and deputy leader of every political party in the UK who has ever had an MP is the deputy leader or Chairman etc. of the Independent Community and Health Concern Party notable. I think not even though that party had an MP in Richard Taylor. Sport and politics (talk) 18:11, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets WP:GNG as has significant coverage in independent reliable sources, such as obituaries in The Independent and The Guardian. Qwfp (talk) 13:28, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As one of two Principal Speakers of the Green Party (represented in European Parliament from 1999), he was certainly notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:50, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - joint leader of a significant national party. Received obituaries in two national newspapers, providing strong evidence of notability. Warofdreams talk 00:34, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The two obituaries establish sufficient notability, and there is significant additional coverage elsewhere. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus--Ymblanter (talk) 07:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of future tallest buildings in the world

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

Do we really need this? There is already a List of tallest buildings in the world. Or maybe merge? Fauzan✆ talk ✉ email 10:23, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I'm holding off on !voting for now. This is a new article that was created today at 10:19, 24 March 2014 (UTC) (per the article's Revision history). The author should be allowed time to add sources to the article, which is unsourced as of this post. Perhaps this nomination may have been a little hasty? NorthAmerica1000 12:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I see no reason, and none has been given in the article, to have a separate article on just "future buildings" (esp. as this list includes all of the "current" buildings as well). The list of current tallest buildings could certainly include any currently planned but not yet completed buildings without need for a separate article. KDS4444Talk 12:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As being totally unsourced. The burden is with the article creator, and by looking at their edit history, is reasonably experienced. Or maybe move to their sandbox so they can source this list before pushing it back into the article space. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I created this article as it's content cannot be found anywhere else on Wikipedia. Additionally, there is no other suitable place for such content, as the list of tallest buildings in the world is already cluttered, and often changes are made to that page to reflect personal opinions on what should or should not be included, such as long since cancelled buildings being included as an individual feels their country should be included, or heights being inconsistent so that an individual's country could seemingly be elevated over another. I have since updated the page, as I had no prior chance to do so, assuming that given it was a brand new article that no one would notice it in the meantime. I have put much work into this article and hope it remains as its content is such that I have previously been disappointed in being unable to find. I therefore feel it is appropriate in its current format, as it provides information which was currently unavailable on Wikipedia, on an important topic, which could not be reasonably merged or placed elsewhere. LabradorGroupTalk 20:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or at least merge. It's a useful and notable list. From Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists: "Notability guidelines apply to the inclusion of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been." The way I read that, as long as the author can find a few reliable sources talking about future tallest buildings, then this list meets the notability requirements. Orser67 (talk) 01:02, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems like a great, useful list, and the topic is notable. Some editing would improve the article, e.g. remove focus on already-built ones, lead with the future ones, mention the table includes already built ones for comparison. Also "built" as title for column including mostly forward "to be built" dates seems odd, should be changed. I like the sortable table for making comparisons, but the default order upfront should be the date, so all the future ones show up first in order. Editing suggestions are offered for Talk page discussion and to help others perhaps see that the topic is notable and valid though current presentation is a little unusual. Good luck with further development! --doncram 01:39, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't think there will be any problem with sources. But first we should have a consensus on what exactly should be meant by future. I think we should count such buildings which are under construction or have been finalized. Existing tallest buildings, like Burj Khalifa and Makkah Royal Clock tower can be italicized in the list without rank for clarity, as they already have a place in the other list. The current colour scheme might be inverted to grey out existing structures Proposed structures may not be included. -- Fauzan✆ talk ✉ email 05:53, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if ... Redirect: the existing structures are removed or at least grayed out as explained above and shown below. Else redirect. -- Fauzan✆ talk ✉ email 09:29, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why would we have this list of FUTURE buildings if the current buildings are included, too? GRUcrule (talk) 19:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to say if they are included, as currently, existing structures do appear in the list. -- Fauzan✆ talk ✉ email 12:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rank Building City Country Height
1 Kingdom Tower Jeddah Saudi Arabia 1000 m
Burj Khalifa Dubai United Arab Emirates 828 m
2 Suzhou Zhongnan Center Suzhou China 700 m
3 Ping An Finance Center Shenzhen China 660 m
  • Keep - While the sourcing could stand improvement, the article passes WP:LISTPURP as a structured list that is a functional navigational aid. NorthAmerica1000 07:41, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Just to add to my reasons for creating this list, it is supposed to provide an idea of what the list of tallest buildings in the world will look like in the future, which would include all currently completed buildings, alongside all under construction or topped out buildings. The reason I kept them alongside is that in removing built skyscrapers the list would merely become a list of under construction or topped out buildings, which would fail to provide any real depiction of what the list of world's tallest buildings will look like in the future. The list was essentially supposed to resemble the CTBUH 'The Tallest 20 in 2020: Entering the Era of the Megatall' report, and resembles the '100 Future tallest buildings in the world' list on the Skyscraper Center by CTBUH, with the notable exclusion being the absence of Proposed buildings, as they regularly fail to make it to the construction stage, and as such wouldn't be a fair representation of the future tallest buildings. LabradorGroupTalk 20:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
N.b. struck duplicate !vote (only one is allowed). However, feel free to comment in the discussion all you'd like. NorthAmerica1000 18:16, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of tallest buildings in the world, which already has sections for "Skyscrapers under construction" and "Skyscrapers on-hold". I think that a case could be made to include incomplete buildings in the main list, too, but that's probably been proposed before. ansh666 05:45, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I appreciate the work that has gone into this, but per Ansh666 I can't see that this list has a substantially different criterion for inclusion than the "under-construction" section of the main list. The author has stated a motivation for this article is incessant POV edit warring at the main article. Sorry, that makes this a WP:POVFORK and is grounds for deletion in itself. I don't think a redirect would be useful: it is not a likely search term. SpinningSpark 18:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Ansh666. If I'm looking for a building that ranks among the tallest in the world, what am I going to search for? No reason it can't be had in the list already created. GRUcrule (talk) 19:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete  A test for articles about the future is will people in twenty years have an interest in what people in 2014 thought the future of tall buildings would be.  There is not a stable topic here to which the test can be applied.  This article intends to be unstable, never is there anything the future will be able to look back upon with interest.  Wikipedia is not a webhost and it is not a newspaper.  Obviously the article also fails WP:CRYSTAL.  See WP:Alternative outlets.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:15, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep : Informative article, it includes a number of newly discovered or revealed data. OccultZone (Talk) 05:24, 3 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. → Call me Hahc21 06:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Taylor (Green politician)

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

Non-notable individual. The only claims to notability for this individual are they were once a principle speak of the Green Party of England and Wales and they have been a parliamentary candidate. These are not noteworthy for notability purposes. Sport and politics (talk) 10:18, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. As joint Principal Speaker he was effectively joint party leader. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Comment - (this has potential for a merge) to Green Party of England and Wales, which as of this post does not mention the subject. NorthAmerica1000 12:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -The holding of this post of Principal Speaker does not make the subject notable. They have to have wider notability established by reliable third party sources. Simply holding one post in a small political party is not enough to make an individual notable (yes the Green Party are a small party, one MP two MEPs and a few councillors here and there, does not make them a medium or big party like UKIP, the Liberal Democrats, the Conservatives or Labour, etc.). In the same way hold municipal elected office in England does not make an individual notable. The post itself can be notable by its history, or high profile office holders, etc. in the same way the office of leader of a Municipal Council is potentially notable as an office. That though does not qualify the holders of that office for notability or inclusion in Wikiepida. There is also no reasoning as to how that post makes the individual holders notable, there is simply use of other stuff exists as a means of justification in this case, which is inappropriate in this case. Sport and politics (talk) 14:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm afraid I completely disagree. The Green Party, while not in the front rank, is certainly in the second tier of British political parties, along with such parties as UKIP and Plaid Cymru and has been for some time. In my opinion, its leaders are notable. That, also in my opinion, is common sense, and there is nothing absurd about common sense. What is, however, absurd is to prefer dogma ("nothing in Wikipedia specifically says they are notable so they can't be notable") over common sense. Remember WP:BURO? -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - I am almost certain you and I Necrothesp have no common ground and will never reach a compromise on this issue. I see this individual as clearly failing under WP:DISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTABLE per WP:POLITICIAN. This individual is not inherently notable just for holding the office of principle speaker of the Green Party. The individual notability of this subject must clearly be demonstrated or here will be an endless stream of indiscriminate article creation for the leader and deputy leader of every political party in the UK who has ever had an MP is the deputy leader or Chairman etc. of the Independent Community and Health Concern Party notable. I think not even though that party had an MP in Richard Taylor. Sport and politics (talk) 18:11, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As one of two Principal Speakers of the Green Party (by then represetned in European Parliament), he was certainly notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:48, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Did not hold elected office, and no evidence that the section of the party he was over conferred notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are you thinking he was only the leader of a section of the party? He was joint leader of the national party. Warofdreams talk 00:33, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - joint leader of a significant national party, albeit one of the more obscure principal speakers. Article has a source providing evidence of notability, anyone with access to printed media of the period could find more. Warofdreams talk 00:33, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep by virtue of party leadership. I favor the lowest of barriers to inclusion of articles about political parties, their leaders, and their youth sections, without regard to size or ideology under the theory is that this is material that should be in a comprehensive encyclopedia. If you want to call that a rationale based on the pillar and policy of "Ignore All Rules," that's fine. Carrite (talk) 00:46, 25 March 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. → Call me Hahc21 06:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Will Duckworth

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

Non-notable politician. Holding the post of Deputy leader of the Green Party of England and Wales, elected municipal office in England and being a parliamentary candidate and not notable individually or when taken collectively Sport and politics (talk) 10:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Being deputy leader of a prominent and parliamentary party, even if not an MP himself, is notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -The holding of this post of Deputy Leader does not make the subject notable. They have to have wider notability established by reliable third party sources. Simply holding one post in a small political party is not enough to make an individual notable (yes the Green Party are a small party, one MP two MEPs and a few councillors here and there, does not make them a medium or big party like UKIP, the Liberal Democrats, the Conservatives or Labour, etc.). In the same way hold municipal elected office in England does not make an individual notable. The post itself can be notable by its history, or high profile office holders, etc. in the same way the office of leader of a Municipal Council is potentially notable as an office. That though does not qualify the holders of that office for notability or inclusion in Wikiepida. There is also no reasoning as to how that post makes the individual holders notable, there is simply use of: it is just because it is, to justify inclusion on Wikipedia which is absurd. Sport and politics (talk) 14:11, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm afraid I completely disagree. Very few British political parties have any MPs or MEPs. In my opinion, the leaders and deputy leaders of those that do are inherently notable. That, also in my opinion, is common sense, and there is nothing absurd about common sense. What is, however, absurd is to prefer dogma ("nothing in Wikipedia specifically says they are notable so they can't be notable") over common sense. Remember WP:BURO? -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:32, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - I am almost certain you and I Necrothesp have no common ground and will never reach a compromise on this issue. I see this individual as clearly failing under WP:DISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTABLE per WP:POLITICIAN. This individual is not inherently notable just for holding the office of Deputy Leader of the Green Party. The individual notability of this subject must clearly be demonstrated or here will be an endless stream of indiscriminate article creation for the leader and deputy leader of every political party in the UK who has ever had an MP is the deputy leader or Chairman etc. of the Independent Community and Health Concern Party notable. I think not even though that party had an MP in Richard Taylor. Sport and politics (talk) 18:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Being deputy leader of this party certainly makes him notable. The comparison with Taylor is not helpful, since his party was a local campaign group, with 1 MP and control of a district council. The Greens are a national party. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - deputy leader of a significant national party (has an MP, two MEPs, runs a council, etc). Article has several sources providing evidence of notability. Warofdreams talk 00:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:POLOUTCOMES suggests that "Leaders of registered political parties at the national or major sub-national (state, province, prefecture, etc.) level are usually considered notable regardless of that party's degree of electoral success" are usually kept. I am unsure here whether the Deputy Leader should be considered "a leader" or "the leader" of the Green Party in this context (Principal Speakers were the leader of the GPEW [before its restructure] and the Deputy leader functions [then and now] more like a co-chair). In a comparable fashion, Sharon Day, the current co-Chair of the Republican National Committee in the United States does not have her own Wikipedia page (although I think she does have significant media and third party coverage). In the references provided in the article, the subject is mentioned, but is not the main focus of any of the articles (including and especially the BBC reference). Enos733 (talk) 05:20, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "Deputy leader" could very well mean this year's personal assistant to the actual leader. Person will probably be notable later on in their life. Jordanee155 (talk) 15:19, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly. The deputy leader of a political party is the deputy leader, not just a personal assistant. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:25, 26 March 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. → Call me Hahc21 06:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Ramsay

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

Non-notable politician. Being a municipal in England a failed parliamentary candidate and the deputy leader of the Green Party of England and Wales does not amount to being notable. The activities and offices held on their own are not notable and collectively are not notable. Sport and politics (talk) 10:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Being deputy leader of a prominent and parliamentary party, even if not an MP himself, is notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -The holding of this post of Deputy Leader does not make the subject notable. They have to have wider notability established by reliable third party sources. Simply holding one post in a small political party is not enough to make an individual notable (yes the Green Party are a small party, one MP two MEPs and a few councillors here and there, does not make them a medium or big party like UKIP, the Liberal Democrats, the Conservatives or Labour, etc.). In the same way hold municipal elected office in England does not make an individual notable. The post itself can be notable by its history, or high profile office holders, etc. in the same way the office of leader of a Municipal Council is potentially notable as an office. That though does not qualify the holders of that office for notability or inclusion in Wikiepida. There is also no reasoning as to how that post makes the individual holders notable, there is simply use of: it is just because it is, to justify inclusion on Wikipedia which is absurd. Sport and politics (talk) 14:11, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm afraid I completely disagree. Very few British political parties have any MPs or MEPs. In my opinion, the leaders and deputy leaders of those that do are inherently notable. That, also in my opinion, is common sense, and there is nothing absurd about common sense. What is, however, absurd is to prefer dogma ("nothing in Wikipedia specifically says they are notable so they can't be notable") over common sense. Remember WP:BURO? -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:32, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - I am almost certain you and I Necrothesp have no common ground and will never reach a compromise on this issue. I see this individual as clearly failing under WP:DISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTABLE per WP:POLITICIAN. This individual is not inherently notable just for holding the office of Deputy Leader of the Green Party. The individual notability of this subject must clearly be demonstrated or here will be an endless stream of indiscriminate article creation for the leader and deputy leader of every political party in the UK who has ever had an MP is the deputy leader or Chairman etc. of the Independent Community and Health Concern Party notable. I think not even though that party had an MP in Richard Taylor. Sport and politics (talk) 18:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Being deputy leader of a party represetned in the UK and Euro Parliaments, even though a member of neither certainly makes him notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:44, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lost in his run for parlianment. He is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:00, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - former deputy leader of a significant national party (has an MP, two MEPs, runs a council, etc). Article could do with stronger sourcing, but there's already one reference providing good evidence of notability and there's plenty more out there. Warofdreams talk 00:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:POLOUTCOMES suggests that "Leaders of registered political parties at the national or major sub-national (state, province, prefecture, etc.) level are usually considered notable regardless of that party's degree of electoral success" are usually kept. I am unsure here whether the Deputy Leader should be considered "a leader" or "the leader" of the Green Party in this context (Principal Speakers were the leader of the GPEW [before its restructure] and the Deputy leader functions [then and now] more like a co-chair). In a comparable fashion, Sharon Day, the current co-Chair of the Republican National Committee in the United States does not have her own Wikipedia page (although I think she does have significant media and third party coverage). Enos733 (talk) 05:21, 25 March 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. → Call me Hahc21 06:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mallen Baker

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

Non-notable freelance, write who is or was the editor of an in-house political massive and a principle speaker of the green party of England and Wales. Non of these activities are notable in thier won right or when collectively taken. Sport and politics (talk) 09:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. As joint Principal Speaker he was effectively joint party leader. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -The holding of this post of Principal Speaker does not make the subject notable. They have to have wider notability established by reliable third party sources. Simply holding one post in a small political party is not enough to make an individual notable (yes the Green Party are a small party, one MP two MEPs and a few councillors here and there, does not make them a medium or big party like UKIP, the Liberal Democrats, the Conservatives or Labour, etc.). In the same way hold municipal elected office in England does not make an individual notable. The post itself can be notable by its history, or high profile office holders, etc. in the same way the office of leader of a Municipal Council is potentially notable as an office. That though does not qualify the holders of that office for notability or inclusion in Wikiepida. There is also no reasoning as to how that post makes the individual holders notable, there is simply use of other stuff exists as a means of justification in this case, which is inappropriate in this case.Sport and politics (talk) 14:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm afraid I completely disagree. The Green Party, while not in the front rank, is certainly in the second tier of British political parties, along with such parties as UKIP and Plaid Cymru and has been for some time. In my opinion, its leaders are notable. That, also in my opinion, is common sense, and there is nothing absurd about common sense. What is, however, absurd is to prefer dogma ("nothing in Wikipedia specifically says they are notable so they can't be notable") over common sense. Remember WP:BURO? -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - I am almost certain you and I Necrothesp have no common ground and will never reach a compromise on this issue. I see this individual as clearly failing under WP:DISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTABLE per WP:POLITICIAN. This individual is not inherently notable just for holding the office of principle speaker of the Green Party. The individual notability of this subject must clearly be demonstrated or here will be an endless stream of indiscriminate article creation for the leader and deputy leader of every political party in the UK who has ever had an MP is the deputy leader or Chairman etc. of the Independent Community and Health Concern Party notable. I think not even though that party had an MP in Richard Taylor. Sport and politics (talk) 18:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As one of two Principal Speakers of the Green Party, he was probably notable, though only in office for one year. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He was not high enough up to make his party position notable, at least considering how large the party was at the time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:21, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - joint leader of a significant national party, albeit one of the more obscure ones. Article has several sources providing evidence of notability, anyone with access to printed media of the period could find more. Warofdreams talk 00:31, 25 March 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. → Call me Hahc21 06:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Lawson (Green politician)

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

Notability for this individual is claimed through a political career as a Woodspring District Councillor in the 1980's-90's, a perennial parliamentary candidate and being the first principle speaker of the Green Party of England and Wales. None of these meet individual notability thresholds individually or when taken collectively. Sport and politics (talk) 09:33, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. As joint Principal Speaker he was effectively joint party leader. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -The holding of this post of Principal Speaker does not make the subject notable. They have to have wider notability established by reliable third party sources. Simply holding one post in a small political party is not enough to make an individual notable (yes the Green Party are a small party, one MP two MEPs and a few councillors here and there, does not make them a medium or big party like UKIP, the Liberal Democrats, the Conservatives or Labour, etc.). In the same way hold municipal elected office in England does not make an individual notable. The post itself can be notable by its history, or high profile office holders, etc. in the same way the office of leader of a Municipal Council is potentially notable as an office. That though does not qualify the holders of that office for notability or inclusion in Wikiepida. There is also no reasoning as to how that post makes the individual holders notable, there is simply use of: it is just because it is, to justify inclusion on Wikipedia which is absurd. Sport and politics (talk) 14:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm afraid I completely disagree. The Green Party, while not in the front rank, is certainly in the second tier of British political parties, along with such parties as UKIP and Plaid Cymru and has been for some time. In my opinion, its leaders are notable. That, also in my opinion, is common sense, and there is nothing absurd about common sense. What is, however, absurd is to prefer dogma ("nothing in Wikipedia specifically says they are notable so they can't be notable") over common sense. Remember WP:BURO? -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - I am almost certain you and I Necrothesp have no common ground and will never reach a compromise on this issue. I see this individual as clearly failing under WP:DISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTABLE per WP:POLITICIAN. This individual is not inherently notable just for holding the office of principle speaker of the Green Party. The individual notability of this subject must clearly be demonstrated or here will be an endless stream of indiscriminate article creation for the leader and deputy leader of every political party in the UK who has ever had an MP is the deputy leader or Chairman etc. of the Independent Community and Health Concern Party notable. I think not even though that party had an MP in Richard Taylor. Sport and politics (talk) 18:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As one of two Principal Speakers of the Green Party (by then represetned in European Parliament), he was certainly notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Being a head of a party that has very little power does not make someone notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:30, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - deputy leader of a significant national party. Article needs better sources, which should be readily available to anyone with access to printed media from the period. Warofdreams talk 00:37, 25 March 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. → Call me Hahc21 06:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Odbrana (tactical defense system)

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

This was deleted by PROD and then shortly after restored. Original reason was on notability grounds. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:19, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:19, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The same applies to Vladimir Djordjevic (martial artist). I had previously tried to cut out the hype, but removing it all would leave a blank page. bobrayner (talk) 00:25, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Doesn't meet WP:GNG. A search for coverage in reliable sources turned up nothing. Almost certainly the result of paid editing. SmartSE (talk) 14:44, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I PRODed both these articles after looking for sources and I also agree that Vladimir Djordjevic (martial artist) is completely non-notable. SmartSE (talk) 20:25, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because they are closely related and part of the same PROD/dePROD cycle.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC):[reply]

Vladimir Djordjevic (martial artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:24, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:24, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:25, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both Articles are about a non-notable martial art and its founder. Nothing shows that either of them meet WP:MANOTE or have the significant independent coverage required by WP:GNG. Mdtemp (talk) 22:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both - I can't find enough to substantiate the notability of either subject. Stalwart111 07:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both - I suspect that there has been some paid editing at work when you review the history of contributors. Shritwod (talk) 13:43, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict)That's more than likely! The editor who challenged the PRODs and who added links to these articles just happens to have a username that is the same as one of Đorđević's 'other names' listed in the infobox and also designed the logo for Odbrana. Is it snowing yet? SmartSE (talk) 15:57, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both I did find a few mentioning of him i some Serbian papers but still to little to be said and even then only about something called Real Aikido but even in serbian papers there is no mentioning of Odbrana. Seeing how this page gets deleted and born over and over faster than Felix I am with Shritwod on this. It looks to much like a "paid" editing. If they atleast could add something to the article instead of just putting on thesame one over and over after it gets deleted.Stepojevac (talk) 15:48, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article was clearly created for promotional reasons. 23 editor (talk) 21:33, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both These sources are not reliable and this seems promotional to say the least. --PDX er1 (talk) 22:55, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. slakr\ talk / 03:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reema Debnath

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

Does not meet wiki notability criteria, majot inter wiki links given as references Shrikanthv (talk) 09:11, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep - as weakly meeting WP:BASIC per: Comment - Some sources:
    • The Shillong Times
    • Mumbai Mirror
    – NorthAmerica1000 12:16, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Changed my !vote to a comment for the time being; I may change it again if more sources are found. NorthAmerica1000 23:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • My humble request, please do not delete "Reema Debnath". The sources "The Shillong Times" and "Mumbai Mirror" are major news publication houses in India. And, "Reema Debnath" is the first Actress from Tripura, Northeast part of India. Your support could help her to bring her ignored state in little focus. Please have your kind thoughts for people from Northeastern part of India. Thank you... (talk) 20:23, 24 March 2014 (UTC) — debnathmallika (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    Shillong Times isn't a "major news publication house", it's a small-circulation publication. And Mumbai Mirror doesn't give her coverage as an actress. Furthermore, you don't seem to understand that Wikipedia is not a publicity medium. Wikipedia is not the place to give "your support" to an up-and-coming actress. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: Per Northamerica1000' sources. Good find. WP:BASIC Tito☸Dutta 15:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The Mumbai Mirror article was written only because she was accidentally declared dead by a court. The article barely mentions her acting, using phrases such as "an aspiring actor" and "played a bit-part role in...Bodyguard". The Shillong Times article is more on point -- but that newspaper is listed as having a total circulation of 17,000 -- not exactly a national presence. --Larry (talk) 15:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:43, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Doesn't appear to meet WP:BASIC per the sources NorthAmerica found above (I agree, good finds, though). Shillong Times (we have an article on it) has the notable distinction of being northeast India's oldest English-language newspaper, but it's a small circulation, not national in scope. And the Mumbai Mirror piece has nothing to do with the subject's notability as an actress. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Difficult to say how good/notable actress she is so far as acting skills are concerned, but meets notability criteria because mainly of the background and resulting popularity/notability in her origin state (Tripura) and region (North East India). As an example, Shilong Times, which is a major English newspaper in North East India, carried the story on her. --Dwaipayan (talk) 01:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, per Dwaipayanc. The background helps, as does the sources that're there. I don't think it's a strong case, but it strikes as enough. In addition, the grammar in the article is poor in some places. GRUcrule (talk) 19:23, 2 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. → Call me Hahc21 06:13, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Naveen Jaihind

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

I've just cleaned this up, per comments at the last AfD. The guy stills fails the WP:NPOL test and most mentions of him are vague, minor soundbites on behalf of groups with which he has been involved. It sahould be noted that (a) the National Executive of the Aam Aadmi Party is not an elected body and is quite numerous; (b) the core committee of Team Anna reference might sound impressive but India Against Corruption themselves said that there was no organisation beyond the 24 members of that self-appointed committee. This is just another of the many AAP-centric candidate articles created in the run-up to the 2014 Indian general election and Wikipedia is not the place for the AAP to promote their candidates. Sitush (talk) 09:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Agreed fails WP:NPOL. Did not win any election or hold any post or attracted wide coverage.Shyamsunder (talk) 09:41, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a little known, unsuccessful politician. Binksternet (talk) 00:47, 28 March 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 snow keep. (non-admin closure) ansh666 05:46, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Lyonel Tollemache, 4th Baronet

Sir Lyonel Tollemache, 4th Baronet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

OK on a genealogy site, but Lyonel appears to have done nothing to pass Wp:notability on ours Crusoe8181 (talk) 09:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article's subject's donation of Ham House to the National Trust is clearly notable. This new article already contains several reliable, independent sources that meet WP:GNG and I and others will probably find more over time. In addition and anyway, there is considerable contextual value in being able to click through the succession of what may today be considered a relatively minor baronetage. Deleting this article would just create pressure to amalgamate the content with the over-arching, preceding and/or succeeding Tollemache baronets articles which would be clumsy and potentially confusing. --KenBailey (talk) 17:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets WP:GNG; as stated by KenBailey this article already has several Reliable sources. The ownership and subsequent donation of Ham House make him notable and helps add context to readers of the Ham House article. SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:55, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As above; and I think baronets are notable, just by virtue of being baronets (unfashionable view on Wikipedia, I know). There aren't that many of them left.45ossington (talk) 18:09, 25 March 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 snow keep. (non-admin closure) ansh666 05:46, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

William Tollemache, 9th Earl of Dysart

William Tollemache, 9th Earl of Dysart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

OK on a genealogy site, but William appears to have done nothing to pass Wp:notability on ours Crusoe8181 (talk) 09:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Obviously. As a member of the House of Lords, he clearly passes WP:POLITICIAN. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:06, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:06, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:06, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is considerable contextual value in being able to click through the succession of what may today be considered a relatively minor peerage. Deleting this article would just create pressure to amalgamate the content with the over-arching, preceding and/or succeeding Earls of Dysart articles which would be clumsy and potentially confusing. KenBailey (talk) 17:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above and per WP:BEFORE. Seriously, some people need to read WP:N before coming here. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets WP:GNG. The ownership of Ham House make him notable and helps add context to readers of the Ham House article. SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:55, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as per above. My own view is that all British peers meet the notability test - and this is an informative and interesting article.45ossington (talk) 18:13, 25 March 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 deleted by User:RHaworth per CSD G11, "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". (Non-administrator closure.) NorthAmerica1000 12:24, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So...u'l...mate?

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

Unremarkable book, creator's username suggests that the article was created by the book's author. Was seriously thinking of tagging this as A11, but the fact that the book was actually published made me think otherwise. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. There's no coverage out there to show notability and getting published by Leadstart isn't exactly something that would gain instant notability either. They're the type of publisher that asks their authors to help contribute funds towards the publication of their books. It's not entirely self-publishing, but it's not terribly far off from it either. Of course that doesn't mean that a book can't gain coverage, but this isn't exactly like someone getting published through a company that asks for zero money. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:03, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This could probably be speedied as spam, given the tone of the article as well as the author's userpage. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn by nominator. Non-admin closure. Safiel (talk) 16:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Malenka, The Vampire's Niece

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

Non-notable film. No sources, no facts, just some OR and a plot summary Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:00, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I'm going through and cleaning a lot of it. So far it's a little difficult searching for sources because of all of the different titles it has had over the years. I do see some mention of it being a cult film in some circles, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This has to be one of the harder movies I've tried to salvage, but I'm finding enough to show notability. Part of what made this so frustrating is that many of what I could find and use hinted at much more coverage in its time, which didn't make it on to the Internet. I wish I could find it, as I'd like to be able to flesh this out more than I have so far. On a side note, I did manage to find one of the rare exceptions to the blog rule, a guest blog posted by a Manchester Metropolitan University on the University of Stirling website. Just sort of neat, but it does help show that this is a good example of the vampire films during this era. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd also recommend moving it to Malenka, as this was the original title of the film. The subtitle "The Vampire's Niece" doesn't seem to be that heavily used. Besides, the subtitles have changed depending on the country. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Tokyogirl79, if you think you can salvage this, I'm happy for you to close the AfD and do so Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:24, 24 March 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:47, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Daren Streblow

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

Non-notable performer; requires significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. References provided either only mention performer or do not satisfy WP:RS/WP:GNG. In the month since PROD was removed, only sources added have been links to Amazon items and Streblow's official website, neither of which are independent of subject or significant coverage. -- Wikipedical (talk) 06:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Leaning delete Comment - After news and book source searches, I found this paywalled article that appears to consist of significant coverage (sigcov), but not finding more sigcov. Additional reliable sources (e.g. [37]) are only providing passing mentions. Appears to possibly not meet WP:BASIC for a standalone Wikipedia article. NorthAmerica1000 12:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Struck parts of my !vote per more sources found on Highbeam by User:Leghari k. NorthAmerica1000 16:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. From the reference list in the article: an interview with an independent organisation and some coverage of his radio show. The latter doesn't seem to be just a PR release (Googling for a Streblow quote from it gets exactly one hit) and the site seems to exercise editorial selectiveness. Facing the Sky (talk) 16:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • One can hardly make a case for notability from citing sites called Family Life Ministries and RBR.com, which are not quite reliable sources. There would be no problem with mainstream news sites referencing Streblow, but none exist. -- Wikipedical (talk) 17:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep. There are sufficient references in article (could definitely be improved further). Leghari k (talk) 12:21, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • There aren't sufficient references in the article, as I pointed out. There are only non-independent sources (links to his website, Amazon product listings) or hyper-local/questionably reliable sources. There is no coverage of him in any major news source. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • A quick search about Daren Streblow on Google SERP offers some 32k pages (which in turn links back to this page as well). A query on HighBeam Research returned mentions from the like of NYT, you can try some coverage of Daren on paper. Here are two articles about him on NewsWire and StarTribune, none referenced in article yet, though. There is some considerable Traffic comming to this article as well. Also subject is not failing WP:SPIP in any case. Leghari k (talk) 13:31, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Update. Found some more references about Daren apparently from third party sources covering comedy, as on freetolaugh.org, rooftopcomedy, dove.org and laughright. Working on to place these references (and the ones in my previous post) to the Daren's article. Leghari k (talk) 10:13, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep. Daren Streblow is very well known and respected in the comedy community, and a favorite with teenagers all over the USA. The projects in which he has been involved, some as a headliner, have received significant coverage. I would hate to seem him penalized for not aggressively pursuing aggrandizement with public relations activities. Dickshunary (talk) 14:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where is that significant coverage you mention? So far, every mention is either promotional or in an extremely local source that fails WP:RS. If you can show significant coverage of him, then please add it to the article. But in the meantime, the article fails WP:N. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per new sources found by Leghari k, and bravo for taking the initiative to find those. GRUcrule (talk) 19:25, 2 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 Cat (Red Dwarf). The Bushranger One ping only 05:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Felis sapiens

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

Whilst I appreciate that an awful lot of work has gone in to editing this page, ultimately there is not much of a reason for it to exist here. The article discusses a fictional species whose evolutionary genus is that of a domestic cat whose features have become similar to that of a human. However, only one of such species is featured prominently throughout the TV series.

My original thought was to try and merge the material in to The Cat (Red Dwarf), however there are no references in this article. I do not feel that the article warrants improvement on its own, although I see no reason for a subset of the information in the article could not be included at The Cat (Red Dwarf) if someone so chose to create it Badanagram (attempt) 12:54, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is listed as a second request even though the original request was made under Votes for Deletion about 10 years ago. Listed as second request 'just in case' Badanagram (attempt) 13:40, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to The Cat (Red Dwarf), as by far the most significant example of this species/race. There are a significant number of sources about the show (see the References and Further Reading sections of Red Dwarf) so some of this will be sourceable. It does need editing/cutting down, to remove excessive plot. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:58, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 07:35, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Before I vote...exactly how popular is Red Dwarf? I've never heard of it, but there are separate entries for species like the Borg collective, after all. Bali88 (talk) 21:24, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fairly popular amongst English science fiction fans, I think. Personally, I wouldn't mind if this article were to be the subject of a Merge or a Keep. Within the Red Dwarf universe The Cat is an extremely important character (one of the "big four"), so an article on his species is similar to an article on Vulcans in Star Trek. RomanSpa (talk) 01:59, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Hahc21 05:43, 24 March 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 List of programs aired by GMA Network. j⚛e deckertalk 15:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brunch with Bing and Michelle

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

Fails GNG. Not finding any reliable sources other than to say it exists. Article makes no claim to importance/notability and cites no sources. Might even qualify for speedy, but I suppose you could say just saying it's a show implies importance? It was PROD, which was removed without further explanation. — Rhododendrites talk |  18:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This was a real TV show back in the day when the Internet was young in the Philippines, and all of the links at time of the show's airing are now dead. This article tells us the show existed, and this one tells why it got cancelled. –HTD 19:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Existence isn't justification for keeping an article (see WP:ITEXISTS and WP:ENN). The question is if it's notable, defined in these terms. --— Rhododendrites talk |  19:56, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's WP:TVSERIES too, which this should pass ("television program is likely to be notable if it airs on a network of radio or television stations (either national or regional in scope"), but that isn't a policy or guideline... –HTD 20:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you quoted more than the first line of WP:TVSERIES, it would be clearer that it absolutely does not pass. Immediately below that line: "In either case, however, the presence or absence of reliable sources is more definitive than the geographic range of the program's audience alone. For instance, a purely local talk radio program can be notable enough for inclusion if it played a role in exposing a major political scandal, and a national television program may not be notable if it was cancelled too quickly to have garnered any significant media coverage." So, again, that it existed and was a tv show isn't enough. TV shows are "likely" notable, because they are very likely to have multiple, in depth, reliable sources written about them. This one doesn't. --— Rhododendrites talk |  20:12, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Maybe. But I dunno how this show lasted, assuming the biggest hindrance here is if "it ended too quickly". I don't even know when this show started/ended so I can restrict the dates when I search. And I dunno if the internet can fetch one, but surely there are plenty in "real" newspapers. –HTD 20:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The mere fact that it existed is not enough to make it notable. Article can be recreated later with reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:53, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 07:28, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Hahc21 05:41, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of programs aired by GMA Network or just delete this stub, per the conversation above. WP:TVSERIES shows that geographic range doesn't grant inherent notability, and the sources aren't there. I say redirect because it certainly deserves to have a line on the list, just not its own article. GRUcrule (talk) 19:28, 2 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 Fuel management systems. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 00:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fuel oil management system

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

One sentence article which fails WP:GNG. It doubtful if it could be developed as proper encyclopaedic article and probably, if kept, should be transwiki to Wiktionary. The article was proposed for deletion but was deproded. One source was added to the article but as it is about the development of fuel oil management system software and not about the fuel management system itself, it is doubtful if it satisfies notability guidelines. Beagel (talk) 18:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It's a recent technological development. Some sources include [38], [39] and [40]. NorthAmerica1000 19:27, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Still not convinced. The first two mention the term in the context of fuel oil management software. The existence of software is not enough to establish notability of the subject. The third one has a paragraph about what the fuel oil management system will include at the 120MW diesel fuel-fired combined cycle power plant in Jamaica but it does not say what the fuel oil management system is. It seems proper what Sidelight suggest. Beagel (talk) 05:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I exported it to v:Fuel oil management system where I might work on it. - Sidelight12 Talk 03:24, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 07:28, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Hahc21 05:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Fuel oil maybe? If it is a new technology likely to gain notability in the future, having a little bit in that article about "FOMS" wouldn't seem out of place. Just a line at Fuel oil#Uses should suffice. Stalwart111 09:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There might be an even better place for it under a new heading - "Software" - at Fuel management systems which already has a "Hardware" sub-heading. That article needs sources and work but merging this there might be a good start. Stalwart111 09:20, 24 March 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. A roughl consensus of the participants argued the topic reached GNG, although a strong policy-based view was made for deletion as well. j⚛e deckertalk 15:39, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Colourlovers

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

Unimportant social website with no evidence for notability and very little purpose altogether. Previous Afd in 2012, with no consensus-- the keep argument was apparently based on webby awards, which turned out to be webby nominations, which are not significant for notability . The TIME material is mere inclusion on a list, not substantial coverage. Everything else is a press release or the equivalent. The only thing added since then is Alexa rank, which we never accept as indicating notability . DGG ( talk ) 21:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't get it, either, but it's got substantial coverage, including a placement in TIME's Top 50 Websites. The Webby Award nominations have also instigated coverage from reliable sources, such as The Oregonian. I never would have thought it possible that a social networking site about color would be notable, and I still have some trouble accepting that it is. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was aware of the Time listing. Based on the material there, there is no plausible reason given why they thought it significant--I can only assume it must have been as a curiosity. That doesn't mean it's notable for an encyclopedia. Local news articles do nto normally support the notability of a local company--they aren't sufficiently discriminating. DGG ( talk ) 00:51, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 07:25, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I am female, and have talked about this website with women friends in Second Life. I visited the website in the past, during 2011. It is indistinguishable from many other similar websites, other than its name. There's lots of spam, not much other content, and I would not call it a blogging platform! At one time, maybe 3 or 4 years ago, it was a functional social network for sharing pattern swatches, but that was brief and is no longer true.--FeralOink (talk) 14:51, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage in TIME was in 2007 only. It was their first year if doing web awards. Look at the other websites on that list, e.g. HypeBeast, iliketotallyloveit, LookyBook, ProFootballChat, Mobaganda, Reverse Cowgirl(?!), parked domains, although I do see Wikitravel, with a screen shot! That was one of their only decent picks.--FeralOink (talk) 02:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Hahc21 05:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, because this list of articles via TechCrunch gives me reason to believe there's something there for WP:N. Being a social media professional....nothing surprises me anymore. (sigh) GRUcrule (talk) 19:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Colors, color combinations, and color patterns are obviously important to artists, architects, interior designers, craftsfolk, and people who dress themselves in the morning; it make senses to me that such a site could attract passionate members. The TechCrunch articles, and the Time, Webby, and Oregonian sources all contribute to notability; there is enough depth for the topic to pass WP:GNG. The article is a bit promotional, but the problems are surmountable, per WP:SURMOUNTABLE. A notable topic and surmountable article problems suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 20:03, 2 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica1000 01:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BLOC Hotels

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

Fails WP:CORP. The Guardian source is good, but I think that's the only coverage in a high quality source that this chain of hotels has received. Article claims that the NYT have covered it, but I can't find any evidence to support this. Almost certainly created by a paid editor: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/TimeQueen32/Archive. SmartSE (talk) 23:45, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The NYT has a two-sentence mini-review of the Birmingham hotel, and at least one photo, at the end of a "36 Hours" feature about the city dated 29 January 2012. [41][42] --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 07:02, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I am always suspicious of any article that says "best known for", which often means "not realy known at all. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:15, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Hahc21 05:29, 24 March 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. Largely as PROMOTIONAL. (In the unlikely event this is restored, check more carefully for copyvios, there are some cut/pastes here that look like they'd need to be dealt with) j⚛e deckertalk 15:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IronFX

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

Promotional article from now-banned promotional editor. The accomplishments of this financial company are very minor; there are no significant awards, the contents is mostly just a list of approvals from regulatory authorities, which merely proves bare existence, not notability , and the remainder of the contents is , incredibly, a list of its own PR efforts. WP should not be among them. DGG ( talk ) 08:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Company that doesn't look notable, with references mainly to registers and PR stuff (so far as I can see). I'm not sure about the banned bit - the creator of the article doesn't seem to be blocked - but there seem to have been many attempts to promote the company, and one of the latest editors to do so is admittedly working for the company in some way (currently spamusername blocked). Peridon (talk) 20:11, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As I have worked on the Chinese page, I know a little about IronFX. According to a previous revision, they have featured on Bloomberg Television,[43] and also have been quoted numerous times.[44] Other features include CNBC, The Wall Street Journal, CCTV Finance giving their opinion on finance and forex. I would say this covers them for notability within the forex industry. They also seem to have won awards, including Best STP/ECN Broker by World Finance Magazine.[45] Also, just did a quick news search it seems they are now a global partner of FC Barcelona.[46] [47] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.250.173.210 (talk) 11:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Hahc21 04:18, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Being someone who has a Conflict of Interest with the article, I've only commented, but do agree with many of the 'keep' arguments above. In order to help editors reach an accurate decision, below I've stated some facts that should help you decide either way.

Media Coverage - Featured regularly in the global media, in interviews and mentions. CNBC, [48] Bloomberg, [49] and Wall Street Journal. [50] A comprehensive list of media/press coverage can be found on the IronFX website. [51]

Awards - These aren't presented on the page currently. Below are the most notable three, but there are around 3/4 that I feel could be published somewhere on the page: CEO of the year 2013 was awarded to the company’s CEO, [52] along with the likes of Jeffrey Bezos; Best Forex Broker 2013 [53] and Best STP/ECN Broker 2013 [54].

Notability - As previously mentioned, IronFX has run a number of high value competitions in the forex market and also is a global partner of FC Barcelona [55]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shmily494 (talk • contribs) 07:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Hahc21 05:23, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - 100% Promotional. Please see numerous online complaints (http://www.forexpeacearmy.com/public/review/www.ironfx.com) and (http://www.forexpeacearmy.com/forex-forum/scam-alerts-folder/19137-ironfx-scammed-sold-off-my-entire-ib-agreement-banking-information-stay-away-them.html)
  • Comment - Me being a paranoid trader, wanting to have my funds safe and secured, (ok, it's not a lot, 5K, but still, my hard earned money), and being in the UK, I went on to a very nice address: 428 Linen Hall, 162-168 Regent Street, London W1B 5TD. It was supposed to be the IronFX office. You can check here: http://www.ironfx.com/en/about/contact#london.However, once I arrived to the following address, the lady at the reception (extremely helpful), told me that a company by that name does not exist. We checked over and over again, even by the suit number, but nothing. That was quite worrying for me. How can "The Global Leader in Online Trading" mislead its clients? Active and potential. It rings a bell for me. A big, huge bell. So, do you claim to have theoretical offices in 18 locations (or at least somewhere around that). It is a disgrace. London office does not exist. New York, on Wall Street? Just tried last week while on vacation in the US. Other beautiful cities? Not at all. So, Can someone do a little research on the company before giving it a wiki page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Readmeright (talk • contribs) 00:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems to exist only to violate WP:PROMOTIONAL. GRUcrule (talk) 19:36, 2 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. Ordinarily I'd relist again with no disucssion, but a look at Duplication Detector shows some significant WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASING concerns here. Best to at least blow it up and start over. The Bushranger One ping only 05:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander diaz

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

This subject's notability is questioned. According to article, the subject has had three TV appearances, though it's unclear if these are significant. References seem to be promotional in nature. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Hahc21 05:21, 24 March 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. → Call me Hahc21 06:09, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jean A. Stuntz

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

does not meet WP:BIO Bishopfrank (talk) 01:29, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Little impact on GS. Too early? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Question: what does "little impact on GS" mean? What is "GS"? --doncram 01:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Google scholar. Click on link 1 inch above, where appear a total of 8 citations to her work from other scholars. To pass WP:Prof#C1 many hundred, if not 1000, are expected. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:59, 18 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep, tentatively. Stuntz has apparently authored several books, some of which have garnered awards. --doncram 01:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just writing stuff is not enough. It is necessary to have the stuff noted by others. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:35, 19 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (Weak) -- will trim the excess, non-useful references if kept. Her book "Hers," etc. has 204 library holdings which is generally a little above the minimum level needed to show an impact being made for an academic book. Combined with a full professor position seems to clear the average professor test with some room to spare. GS is a terrible reference for humanities academics and lack of impact there is meaningless. Many star scholars have GS hits in the single digits. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 03:11, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Library holdings are one of the weakest indicators of notability. Libraries often order books by rote and volumes may sit on shelves for eternity without being opened. Library borrowings would be more indicative but are not yet available. They may be one day. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:35, 19 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Hahc21 05:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:AUTHOR which stipulates book reviews. See JSTOR for The Journal of Southern History, The Western Historical Quarterly, The American Journal of Legal History, Louisiana History: The Journal of the Louisiana Historical Association, The Southwestern Historical Quarterly, East Texas Historical Journal. -- GreenC 13:48, 24 March 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. → Call me Hahc21 06:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Woden's Folk

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

Not particularly nice, but not particularly notable, either. Sources consider of, in order:

  1. A one-line mention as part of a biography of someone else in an article about many, many people, by Hope Not Hate;
  2. The org itself;
  3. Self-published by the org itself;
  4. The org itself;
  5. An archived copy of a freeserve website;
  6. A quote from the founder (or, a founder);
  7. The org itself;
  8. The org itself;
  9. The org itself;
  10. The org itself;
  11. An two-paragraph article from a local newspaper about a protest some of their members were involved in.

If chewbacca is not from endor and Woden's Folk are not notable, you must delete. Ironholds (talk) 01:05, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- It is very difficult to judge the scale of a pagan religious group, but unless someone can provide evidcne of a membership at least in the 100s and preferably 1000s, I consider that we must assume it to be NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:16, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Hahc21 05:20, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'd say it was something made up in school one day if I didn't think they were serious. The refs don't indicate notability, I double checked them. Jango Fett ate a Woden Folk. Szzuk (talk) 16:49, 30 March 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 deleted by User:Cindamuse per CSD G5, "Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban: User:Khursheed Khan Pictures". (Non-administrator closure.) NorthAmerica1000 15:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Khursheed Khan (Urdu actor)

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

Doesn't even come close to meeting WP:BIO guidelines. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 04:14, 24 March 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. Once the meatpuppets and sockpuppets are removed, the only "Keep" argument left is "hey, lots of sources", but as Biruitorul points out, the majority of mentions are trivial and thus do not meet the requirements of the WP:GNG. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:15, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mircea Popescu

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

There is essentially no coverage indicating this individual might meet WP:BIO. The vast majority of the references are either blog posts, forum posts, contracts and the like, or they do not mention Popescu at all. There are a handful of passing mentions in what seem to be slightly more reliable sources, but nothing suggests the depth needed for an encyclopedic biography. - Biruitorul Talk 03:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is mention by name in Gawker, Wired, Bloomberg News, Wall Street Journal, Hacker News, and pretty much every other venue there. You will probably have to delete all Romanian bios at this rate, because currently there doesn't exist a Romanian alive with better exposure. Check the actual references. Altus mare (talk) 09:06, 24 March 2014 (UTC) — Altus mare (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

And Forbes, Ars Technica. Reuters. Altus mare (talk) 09:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • 1) "Mention" isn't enough to demonstrate encyclopedic notability. Yes, Bloomberg News "mentions" Popescu: to note that he sent an e-mail denying having broken the law. This hardly satisfies the "significant coverage" portion of WP:BASIC.
      • For your convenience, here is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2014_March_24#Amir_Taaki compare and contrast.
    • 2) Your other comment is nonsense. If by "exposure" you mean "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject", then it's perfectly possible to write comprehensive articles about living Romanian individuals like Victor Rebengiuc, Sever Voinescu or Radu Berceanu without stuffing them with garbage. (I mean, you actually think this belongs in an encyclopedia??) - Biruitorul Talk 14:06, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Definitely notable, https://twitter.com/FlitterOnFraud/status/447013452226113536 etc Jordanee155 (talk) 13:44, 24 March 2014 (UTC) — Jordanee155 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Striking !vote of CheckUser-verified sockpuppet of Altus mare. -- Atama頭 19:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Sockpuppet. - Biruitorul Talk 14:06, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Seeing how I'm the only vote so far, sockpuppet of who? Get over it, you didn't read the refs and jumped to conclusions. It happens, no need to push it further and embarass yourself. Jordanee155 (talk) 20:03, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:03, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Jordanee155 (talk) 13:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - With 39 inline citations, including information about him in The Wall Street Journal and other major newspapers, this man is quite notable.--DThomsen8 (talk) 15:59, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • DThomsen8, I'm frankly quite disappointed to see this sort of reasoning from such an experienced user as yourself. Of the "39 inline citations", at least 23 manifestly fail WP:RS, while the remainder are at best of tangential relevance. (If another 164 links to Popescu's blog were added, would you then commend the article for its "203 inline citations"?) For instance, the Wall Street Journal article, if you actually look at it, says nothing at all about Popescu. I hope to see you come back with a more thorough, policy-based explanation of why you think the man is notable. - Biruitorul Talk 16:30, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/21f3of/mircea_popescu_on_wikipedia/ I would imagine this sort of thing must be against some sort of policy you have here. Even if it isn't, please keep your nonsense contained, reddit has no use for wikipedia drama. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.125.251.83 (talk) 17:21, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above IP geolocates to Romania, home of Mircea Popescu. The post on Reddit is highly suspicious and doesn't look like something User:Biruitorul would post. It's also the only post ever made on Reddit by that account. Looks like an attempted frame job. -- GreenC 17:42, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Judging by the views plug-in the page in question was seen by a lot of people (262 times in the last 90 days as of this moment). Much to nobody's surprise, it generated disproportionate edits from Romanian users. This would moreover indicate notability, and while the reddit post may or may not have been originated by the AfD proponent, it also shows clear familiarity with the original article's subject among the reddit userbase. None of this is particularly noteworthy, but User:Green Cardamom's recent history did catch my eye. So, GC: what is your connection to Dave Renton, and how come a delete vote by a new user sent you into such a tailspin? By now you've dedicated more words to hounding them than is warranted, wouldn't you say?192.65.243.5 (talk) 22:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea who user:Biruitorul is, but on the strength of a cursory review of his user talk page it'd seem that a) he has a lengthy history of emotion-driven activity and poor interactions with other users, chiefly new users; and b) is actually Romanian, and perhaps in some relation to the Romanian Foreign service.
That said, the discussion is neither here nor there, I have no relation to either the article's subject, or any of the users involved, or with wikipedia in general. Nor do I wish to, which is the point: keep your crap off reddit. Nobody likes you, generally speaking, and the presumptuous, misguided sort of nonsense I'm responding to here is a prime example of why. Romania is a large country, populated by a lot of distinct Internet users. Comparatively, wikipedia is a small shithole populated by a lot of indistinguishable idiots. Please stop getting into everyone's day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.125.251.83 (talk) 18:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Green Cardamom, thank you for your comment here and at the SPI page. As you suggest, I have nothing whatsoever to do with the Reddit post. - Biruitorul Talk 17:58, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I have taken the trouble to go through all the references. It breaks down like so: "SatoshiDice shares are traded on the MPEx bitcoin stock exchange" (Forbes) ; " S.DICE share prices on MPEX are now more than double the original IPO price." (Bitcoin Magazine) ; "SatoshiDice was listed on MPEX, a Romanian Bitcoin securities exchange" (Venture beat, multiple other references by name) ; "traded on MPEx, the Romanian Bitcoin securities exchange" (Coindesk) ; "it was publicly traded on MPEX, a Bitcoin denominated stock exchange" (Lightspeed Venture Partners) ; "Omul de afaceri Timisorean Mircea Popescu" which Google translates as "Businessman Timisoara Mircea Popescu" (Cotidianul, seems to be a major Romanian daily) ; "t a Romanian Bitcoin billionaire" (Slashdot, front page) ; "El responsable de MPEx Bitcoin, Mircea Popescu, ha decidido aportar el dinero que necesita el proyecto OpenSDB" (siliconweek) ; "Mircea Popecu, un millonario rumano, ha decidido patrocinar OpenBSD" (unocero) ; "Mircea Popescu, Romanian creator of the MPEx Bitcoin stock exchange" (Ars Tehnica) ; "Mircea Popescu, the creator of the MPEx Bitcoin stock exchange" (hacker news) ; "Le roumain Mircea Popescu fondateur de mpex et détendeur d'un tel nombre de Bitcoin qu'il en serait milliardaire" (linuxfr) ; "že rumunský miliardár Mircea Popescu" (linux-mint-czech) ; "Mircea Popescu. Image: Courtesy Mircea Popescu" (Wired) "On the website bitbet, which is basically a bitcoin-based version of PaddyPower, one bitcoiner has placed a wager aimed squarely at the Oracle of Ohama: that bitcoin will outperform Class A shares of Berkshire Hathaway" (WSJ) ; "Mircea Popescu, the MPEx operator to whom the letter was addressed, confirmed its receipt in an e-mail to Bloomberg News" (Bloomberg) ; " The agency sent MPEx operator Mircea Popescu a letter" (engadget) ; "The owner of the exchange, a Romanian man named Mircea Popescu, declined." (Gawker). Other references provide support tangentially. The notion that this person is not be notable is indefensible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.65.243.5 (talk) 22:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The footnotes seem to establish sufficient coverage to definitely establish notability worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedic reference. Media references to him seem likely to be sustained into the future so long as Bitcoin remains relevant. It should also be noted the the Romanian language sources that mention him do not detract from the notability. He's attracted substantial interest in the Romanian language space in the past and has been gathering a lot of notice in the English language space. Since he doesn't seem to be slowing down on doing big thing or on attracting big headlines, criticism on the basis on notability sounds weak. Mr Wave (Talk - Contribs) 02:09, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • While Mr Wave is not a single-purpose account, I do note that aside from a burst of AfD activity in August-September 2012, this is his only AfD participation, and his only edit period since November 2012, so this vote is a bit suspect.
      • I know enough of Wikipedia to know it isn't about votes. It is about discussion. I rarely have enountered AfDs on topics of interest, and rarely felt compelled to offer edits. The guy makes headlines. From what I can tell he runs what seems to be one of the largest concerns in Bitcoin. Mr Wave (Talk - Contribs) 03:14, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • In any case, your argument fails on the merits.
      • Airy pronouncements about what "seems" to be the case cannot substitute for specific evidence of notability in specific sources, which you have plainly failed to cite. Moreover, any references to the future are to be discounted, per WP:CRYSTALBALL.
        • To quote from the afore referenced Amir Taaki AfD, "The nominator misstates WP:GNG and WP:OUTCOMES. Sufficient citations of a good quality throw the burden of proof onto the nominator, by presuming notability. The nomination has not stated why a presumptively notable person's article should be deleted, other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT". That discussion centered around one mention in one not particularly notable, non English, purpose-made interview. The result of that debate was Keep. What you have here is a dozen or so mentions in definitely notable, English sources, spanning a number of years - definitely 2009, 2014. There is nothing factual supporting weasel words like "airy pronouncements", and claiming the OP has "failed to cite" is beyond ludicrous. You have failed to cite, or even make a serious attempt of considering the facts of the matter.
      • The only remotely reliable source presented is this. Setting aside the unconventional format - a scan that happens to have Popescu's name underlined - it does nothing in terms of notability. It informs us that Popescu filed a legal complaint against Eugen Simion. Last I checked, filing a legal complaint was generally not grounds for being considered notable.
        • In the sense the only proof we have for the existence of single cell organisms is buttermilk, the only reliable source presented is the one you reference. For the rest of the world, there's the dozen or so reliable sources such as Bloomberg, WSJ or Gawker referenced in the article.
          • As soon as you bring up specifics, any argument for keeping the article falls apart.
    • Gawker is a blog. It is not to be cited, per WP:SPS.
    • As I pointed out a week ago, the WSJ article does not mention Popescu at all.
    • Bloomberg tells us that Popescu received an e-mail and responded to that e-mail via a chat message. A billion people do that every day. True, not all of them are mentioned for it by Bloomberg, but there's no convincing argument to say that this particular e-mail receipt by Popescu adds to his notability. Since, as an IP who just started editing, you're surprisingly familiar with the workings of Wikipedia, surely you know about this project not being designed for routine news coverage? - Biruitorul Talk 13:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • So, yes, airy pronouncements about how notable Popescu is are not enough for this discussion, and once the discussion turns to specifics, the case remains equally weak. Just throwing out names like WSJ isn't enough, when it turns out those citations are worthless. - Biruitorul Talk 13:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • The rest of your comment is equally non-specific: "gathering a lot of notice", "doing big thing [sic]", "attracting big headlines" are largely vapid phrases that do not tell us just why the man is notable. - Biruitorul Talk 02:43, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - But see below: Mr. Popescu is a well-known and controversial figure in the Bitcoin community - and perhaps the only one among such figures who has not, to date, been disgraced by association with infamous fraud artists. In addition to running his several businesses (described in detail in earlier comments, as well as on his own site) he devotes considerable time and resources to exposing the frauds and swindles which have unfortunately become commonplace in the cryptocurrency field. To take one example, Popescu predicted the acrimonious bankruptcy of the MtGox Bitcoin Exchange - and of a number of other questionable ventures - providing ample warning, months in advance, to anyone who would listen. What James Randi is to paranormal quacks and faith healers, Popescu is to the numerous con artists who bear much responsibility for the still somewhat-poor public image of cryptocurrency as a concept. This being said, I'm not certain if he wishes to be included in a Wikipedia biography, if the facts described here or in earlier comments qualify him for inclusion, or, for that matter, whether he confirms the accuracy of the statements found in this page. Perhaps someone should ask him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asciilifeform (talk • contribs) 02:38, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Another long-dormant account activated specifically for this AfD... - Biruitorul Talk 02:43, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • If there is a manual page specifying a minimal frequency of contribution to Wikipedia in order to not count as a spammer, I would appreciate a link.... - asciilifeform — Preceding undated comment added 02:55, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes there is one, and your lawyering of wikipedia rules seems to indicate that you have created socks with a very specific purpose in mind. Dahn (talk) 19:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Maybe look into WP:BEFORE while at it. As I'm sure you're well aware, it mandates that before an AfD is filed the nominator must make a reasonable attempt to source the article. Somewhat strange that reasonable attempt would have failed so unreasonably.
          • Nonsense. What WP:BEFORE actually says is that one should check for the validity and relevancy of sourcing in the text (which has been done, and has exposed the matter of WP:NOTNEWS), and advises one to see if additional sources do exist, and if they are relevant enough to warrant a reconsideration. WP:BEFORE even suggests the outlets where this verification might be attempted, and they are similarly posted at the top of every nomination: Google Books, Google Scholar, and so on. Is Mircea Popescu's biography in any way covered by relevant sources not found in the article, particularly by scholarly sources? No. Is Mircea Popescu's biography even covered properly by the sources now cited in the article? No -- in fact, several don't even refer to him at all, and many are not in fact citable sources. At this point in time, and in the foreseeable future, any of the stuff that would make this an actual encyclopedia entry could only ever be sourced through original research -- meaning that the sourcing as it is, with all the irrelevancies and trivialities already in there, only goes to cover two or three events in Popescu's life, all of them fleeting, all of them foldable into the text of any other article that would deal with the events themselves -- should we ever even need such articles. I want to be clear that I am not debating this with single-purpose accounts bent on servicing Mr. Popescu's vanity, or whatever; I am stating this clearly for the benefit of all readers who may not have yet figured out what's being attempted here. Dahn (talk) 18:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Oh gawd. Just look at the article -- if there is anything in't that doesn't say puff-piece, let me know. Dahn (talk) 19:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did Biruitorul ask you to come vote here? Your mutual preoccupation with fringe Romanian topics (nationalism, antisemitism and whatnot) is just a little odd that's all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.114.88.242 (talk) 20:45, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Instead of attempting stalking, why don't you just go and start another fake reddit thread -- seeing that, either way, you're a hair's breadth from having yourself and all your puppet armada blocked from wikipedia? Dahn (talk) 21:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • You don't intimidate me. I have no idea why you're trying to, either.
  • Comment While allowing Biruitorul and his merry band of Romanian Special Interest Friends to scare away new contributors and try to intimidate established users is definitely unencyclopedic but may well be unavoidable, allowing them to control what content is added to Wikipedia seems both against public interest and entirely avoidable. Perhaps a thorough review of the sort of the generally obstructive and in parts despicable behavior displayed on this page as well as throughout their histories is in order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.114.88.242 (talk) 23:22, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, seems things are getting a bit heated here...let's all WP:AGF, yeah? In regards to this article, I don't know if the person himself is too well-covered by some of the sources (such as this one I found)....but why can't the article be Renamed to MPEx? That's what the more reliable sources (Bloomberg, etc.) are covering - not the man behind it, but what this man created. GRUcrule (talk) 19:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The sock puppet investigation has confirmed two accounts attempting to influence this AfD and the accounts have been blocked "because they misused the sockpuppet to influence a deletion discussion". See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Altus_mare/Archive for more information. -- GreenC 20:40, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable and poor quality sourcing. -- GreenC 20:40, 2 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. → Call me Hahc21 06:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pineapple Group

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

Contested CSD A7, does appear to have quite a few media hits. Tawker (talk) 03:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable group. Non-trivial, independent support for group is lacking. reddogsix (talk) 08:54, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete - This article should not be deleted. The group is featuring in media at present. The group and its activities have been discussed on a number of occasions in the Queensland parliament. - Health4102

Do not delete For links to numerous non-trivial independent support of the group: http://www.allnewsau.com/term/Pineapple+Group The group is big news in the Australian state of Queensland at the moment. The group is involved in a dispute that is threatening the entire public health service there. Health4102 (talk) 16:16, 24 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Health4102 (talk • contribs) 16:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC) — Health4102 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Comment - None of the references are non-trivial in nature. reddogsix (talk) 16:27, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete As a UK physician, I came to Wikipedia to obtain a more balanced account of this group's activities. I largely got this, though I do wish that even more information were available and I look forward to the article being augmented in the coming weeks. Certainly, I think that it would be a pity to delete the entry because a buzz outside of the group's home nation of Australia is certainly building. Wide and continuing interest is thus likely. Media outlets seem to be portraying divergent and polar views that are probably based on unstated agenda. It is in cases such as this that Wikipedia has an especially important role to play.

  • Comment - None of this a valid Wikipedia reason to keep the article. reddogsix (talk) 16:27, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:01, 24 March 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 Mount Hope, San Diego. The page's edit history has been retained, if any editor wishes to boldly merge something. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 00:15, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mt. Hope, San Diego

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

There already is an article for this neighborhood. Cg41386 (talk) 02:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:17, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect since virtually all of the information is already present in the target article. --MelanieN (talk) 17:48, 24 March 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. → Call me Hahc21 06:07, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Farrell

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL.. non-notable JMHamo (talk) 02:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 10:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:58, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:58, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:58, 24 March 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. We need to WP:SOCK this article in the mouth, so it can then go to a WP:SPA and spend the rest of its days RESTing. No problem with re-creating this, provided multiple, independent, reliable sources are included. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:29, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note added later: It has been suggested to me that instead of delete, merge/redirect to Representational state transfer would have been a better result. My reading of the consensus (after discounting all the SPA/sockpuppet keeps) is that there were insufficient reliable sources to support the topic, and the same would have been true had the material been merged into somewhere else. Still, the real discussion here was whether to delete this article, not about the content of other articles. If somebody wants to edit Representational state transfer to include information about this topic, that would fall under normal editorial discretion (in other words, there's nothing in this AfD closure which would prevent somebody from doing that). Of course, editors of that page may object to the material for the same reason this article was deleted, but that's a content dispute, best resolved at Talk:Representational state transfer. If anybody wants to see the deleted content of this article for reference, ask me, or any admin, to recover the most recent version into your user space. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:06, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RESTful API Modeling Language

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

Author removed PROD, my original concern was "Does not appear to be a notable programming language. Only sources are not independent or do not discuss the subject in detail." Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:10, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: RAML is in fact not a programming language; it is a modeling language, as the article explains. More to the point, there are independent sources that describe RAML and its tooling in some detail, for example in Forbes magazine, as well as the ones already cited in the article. And surely the growing list of independent developers on github supporting RAML, and documenting their support in detail via readme pages, constitute an indication of notability.
Usarid (talk) 05:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've just read the content of RESTful API Modeling Language, and the contents of the article seem to be reasonable. It's a good explanation of what RAML is, with links to the existing tools supporting it (created by people around the world). It also makes references to other related standards, which offers the reader the possibility of understanding the enclosing field beyond the standard itself, compare, combine, create.
I would keep the article for the reasons mentioned above.Nohorbee (talk) 15:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The article needs work regarding inline links, but it shouldn't be deleted – just as described by Nohorbee. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 00:16, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a valid argument for keeping an article. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but that's from an essay. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 06:02, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The article provides information about a legitimate standard with appropriate links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pspeter3 (talk • contribs) 20:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I just read the Forbes website link. I wish it was longer, since it looks pretty promising, but it's too short to count as significant coverage. And being used a lot on gitHub isn't exactly a claim to notability either. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Does this article from Dr. Dobb's count? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 01:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: And how about this incredibly-lengthy exposition? Usarid (talk) 23:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I don't understand why having numerous independent github projects that are all about RAML doesn't qualify as evidence for notability. Many are clearly lengthy, significant works, they deal with RAML in great detail, plus their authors wouldn't have built implementations of RAML if it wasn't notable. Usarid (talk) 23:24, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The article provides information about a legitimate standard with multipleappropriate links included in the article as well as cited in this discussion. The fact that the Forbes article is short hardly counts as a criticism given a mainstream publisher like Forbes usually only tends to cover notable topics. I believe multiple Github projects built on the RAML modeling language also shows notability because the number of independent developers using it as a baseline in their projects - if it did not have penetration or notability there would be fewer independent teams interested in building for it since no one wants to release software built on a standard that is not used. Finally as I mentioned above there are multiple independent publishers across media verticals (business, technical, news) including primary technical publications like Dr. Dobbs, technical news publishers like Programmable Web and mainstream media publishers like Forbes all covering the RAML modeling language showing broad interest aka notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crines (talk • contribs) 00:09, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added additional links to the main article.
  • Keep: Kin Lane a recognized expert on APIs and the assorted tools including modeling languages has written multiple times on his API Evangelist site which is the go to site for information on API related topics including API Design: Do You Swagger, Blueprint or RAML which is a look at the major modeling language choices including RAML and Hello World Product API With Blueprint, RAML And Swagger a detailed review of these same 3 modeling languages. I argue interest from a leading API Expert shows considerable notability. comment added by Crines (talk)
  • Keep: 3Scale a leading and completely independent provider of API Tools and a Services references RAML on their API education site APICodex: http://apicodex.3scale.net/content/Schema_Modeler comment added by Crines (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:37, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Thanks Narutolovehinata5 for pushing for establishing notability. From all the above independent and often expert-level sources, many of which go into considerable detail, it feels to me that that's established. Usarid (talk) 17:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This article describes a notable innovation in the developing field of API management that obviously has followers not only across industry influencers and enterprise companies, but also within the developer community, which is evident with the growing list of Github projects. Please Keep.--Ivolazy (talk) 22:47, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:30, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting comment - Relisting this because it appears possible that some sockpuppetry may be occurring in which it is possible that the same user may be posting multiple keep !votes. Note the following revision histories in which five new user accounts have contributed primarily to the article and this AfD discussion: [56], [57], [58], [59], [60]. Also, I have struck duplicate !votes from the same user accounts. NorthAmerica1000 02:33, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have opened a sockpuppet investigation: see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Usarid. Mz7 (talk) 02:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You beat me to it. Thanks for filing the SPI. NorthAmerica1000 02:50, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - never mind the sockpuppet show, there is no evidence of notability, only one non-primary source. Flat Out let's discuss it 04:05, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Forbes article does in fact cover this subject and indicates it is significant. "Which is where RAML comes in. RAML (or RESTful API Modeling Language, is a concise, expressive language for specifying APIs. A common lingua franca and approach for the API set if you will." I think it's a niche subject and a merge to a parent subject might be worth considering if an appropriate one can be identified (API?). I don't think deletion is a good (appropriate) outcome. Candleabracadabra (talk) 20:33, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not sure that qualifies as "substantial coverage." Flat Out let's discuss it 23:44, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A Request for More Information - As the original creator of the article I would find it extremely helpful for Flat Out to explain why he feels that basically none of the cited content is valid from a notability standpoint. References from media across many areas have been cited here and in the actual article. For instance I don't understand how Dr. Dobbs a technical publication of some renown is not considered valid. I'm also wondering why interest by industry experts doesn't qualify and why ever increasing support from the developer community isn't notable. There are the other cited sources as well but a more detailed explanation would help me. I honestly believe in this topic area which is I'll admit newish but rapidly growing that the various sources myself and others have provided are excellent examples and in line with what I'd expect to find. What sources do you require to consider something notable? This is not a critism of your thinking it's not notable but a request so I can better understand your reasoning why it's not. Thank you for your thoughts. Crines (talk) 00:20, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I might be missing something, but I see 3 sources from the the RAML Workgroup (not independent) and one from Fielding, Roy et al that doesn't mention the subject at all but just confirms Modelling language exists. None of these 4 sources support the notability of the subject. There is a Forbes reference mentioned above, which (in my opinion) does not have the subject of the article as the main of the article. I don't see substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Flat Out let's discuss it 00:35, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
thank you for the quick response. please see the external links section which has multiple sources and in my comments above there's links to articles by Kin Lane a noted industry expert not only discussing the RAML modeling language but also others in this arena. I also linked to a large independent API tech company that includes a link to RAML as well as the others on their education site - this is a small reference at the moment but given the focus and size of the mentioner I think it actually has more wait than it would in other cases. There is also mention of many independent developers picking up RAML. Finally I'd note RAML is but one of 3 prominent API modeling languages which I believe should have pages (I link yo the other two in see also but have not started to add content because of the ongoing discussion here on RAML). Thanks again. Crines (talk) 00:46, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Crines external links aren't references. If you have good sources for the content here or in the links, you need to cite them against the content they are supporting. Flat Out let's discuss it 01:34, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Flat Out - thank you for that explanation and now I'm glad I asked. being new I did not realize the article is not taken in its entirety but as discrete chunks , each with a specific job to do and since I put so much context into the External Links section it isn't even being considered as source content by those saying it doesn't have enough citation data. this was not obvious to me because those people supporting the article seem to have taken the article in its entirety. i will endeavour to correct my structural mistakes tomorrow afternoon or anyone else familiar with the topic please feel free to do it if you have cycles before I can get to it. also relevant citations along with supporting content must be moved from this discussion to the main article as they are also not being used in the notability discussion. Flat Out again I'd like to thank you for helping me understand what is required in a quality Wikipedia article. I think with changes this article certainly is one and going forward I will not make the same mistakes. Life is about learning. Crines (talk) 04:22, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Promised changes to Citations and Relevant Source Text coming Tomorrow - life got in the way of making edits the past 2 days. However I will have time at some point tomorrow to make the necessary structural improvements & additional content changes. Crines (talk) 04:14, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Been bogged down but additional citations will be added by Tuesday evening. Thank You Crines (talk) 04:12, 1 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. → Call me Hahc21 06:07, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hanna Tucker

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

Unable to find reliable, secondary sources which evidence the notability of this model under WP:GNG. I found a couple YouTube videos of the alleged web series after having failed to see the title appear in a plain Google search, I see that one episode reached 32 views. j⚛e deckertalk 02:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I wish her well, but it's just far too soon for her to have an article. None of her modeling gigs have landed her any coverage to speak of, which is ultimately what we need to show notability. She hasn't received any coverage for acting either. Basically what we need here are news articles (or the equivalent) that talk about her in-depth. Just being a model, actress, and making a webseries isn't enough for notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence of notability. No sources but self pub first party website. - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lack of secondary source coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Google news search for her name in quotes reveals her Facebook profile. No secondary sources to be found anywhere. YouTube videos establish no notability with <50 views. Elassint Hi 09:01, 25 March 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 Taiwan under Japanese rule. The Bushranger One ping only 05:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Consulate-General, Taihoku

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

fails WP:ORG. embassies are not inherently notable and consulates even less so. unreferenced for 3.5 years. LibStar (talk) 00:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:23, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merging seems sensible, on the basis suggested by Pburka (reliably sourced material only). Stalwart111 04:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have added one reference and there is other material to be found - there appears to be some sort of connection with The Brookings Institute. A merger with Taiwan under Japanese rule is a fall back possibility, although that article is already very long. ► Philg88 ◄ ♦talk 08:18, 27 March 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. → Call me Hahc21 06:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Harbour Centre (Hong Kong)

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

No significant claim of notability, no references indicating coverage in reliable sources. Appears to be a run-of-the-mill office building. RadioFan (talk) 02:05, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How is containing the Consulate Generals and Consulates of Australia, the Czech Republic and consulate and Monaco not a claim of notability? --Oakshade (talk) 02:16, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:23, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable building that doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG. Leasing office space to non-notable consulates doesn't make the building notable. Leasing parts of the building to notable consulates wouldn't necessarily make the building notable. Stalwart111 04:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What countries consulates do you deem notable and what do you base your criteria of what countries are notable? --Oakshade (talk) 00:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Those that meet WP:GNG, not for the relationship between the two countries but in their own right. The consulate of a tiny country could be notable if the Consul has been particularly active and has gained significant coverage in reliable sources for the consulate's activities. But in general, most consulates haven't been considered individually notable but some embassies are and relationships ("X - Y relations") between countries with a verifiable diplomatic history are more often than not considered notable. Even if the consulates themselves were notable, that would make the consulates notable, not the building they are in. If they are notable then we should have articles for the consulates themselves, not the building where they happen to be located. In some cases, it is the historically notable building that is notable and not the current tenant (be it a consulate, embassy or corporation). In this instance I can't see either the building or its tenants being notable. Stalwart111 05:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete fails WP:GNG. Consulates are rarely notable by WP standards so having them as tenants doesn't add to notability here. LibStar (talk) 13:14, 30 March 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. → Call me Hahc21 06:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nabto

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

They've engaged in some experiments, and a few years ago they hwere awarded some patents. There is no indication that they have actually done anything, or exploited the patents commercially with any degree of success. I think the best summary of the situation is "not yet notable" . The article was written by a now-banned promotional editor. DGG ( talk ) 08:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:43, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:43, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:43, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Hahc21 04:18, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:23, 24 March 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. → Call me Hahc21 06:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DreamPark Tycoon

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

Non-notable game that (miserably) failed a Kickstarter by a non-notable company that has only previously launched a game demo. Unable to find any reliable and recent third party coverage despite the game supposedly launching this month, though the game apparently received some press last September. gsk 05:41, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails GNG. --Odie5533 (talk) 22:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Odie, can't find any RS's. -- ferret (talk) 01:29, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica1000 02:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Mensah

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

Not sure this guy passes the WP:BIO guidelines of multiple independent reliable sources. Proposed deletion was declined by Nkansahrexford (talk · contribs). Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 16:27, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 16:31, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 17:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Hahc21 04:23, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:22, 24 March 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. → Call me Hahc21 06:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Multi-syllabic

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

No real content; no real sense; no real point. Imaginatorium (talk) 13:33, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Syllable (though the current content would fit in Rhyme or Rhyme scheme)-- Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 14:34, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 14:34, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Note that the entire content of the page is as follows:
Rhyme schemes utilizing copious repetition of phonetically similar syllables.
Eminem is a notable example of this scheme.

Could anyone suggest where this "content" might fit into Syllable or Rhyme ? Imaginatorium (talk) 13:28, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: article is redundant (perhaps too grand a word for such meager content); see Multisyllabic rhymes - Neonorange (talk) 20:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable and unreferenced item. Probable OR. Fiddle Faddle 02:51, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete good nom, and per Neonorange. Don't think the content is worth inserting anywhere.--ColonelHenry (talk) 19:08, 26 March 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:47, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Obiwon

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

Does not meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:21, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:08, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Given the examples of coverage on the article's talk page, what makes you so sure that the subject does not meet either of those guidelines? --Michig (talk) 17:20, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Only two there that meet RS, but that should be enough. Walter Görlitz (talk)
  • Keep: This article meets WP:GNG. The sources cited are independent of the subject. This article also meets the eighth criteria of WP:MUSICBIO. The artist in question was nominated for the The Headies, a notable award in Nigeria. Lastly, according to the criteria for musicians and ensembles, "A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, instrumentalist, etc.) may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria:". versace1608 (talk) 01:29, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination for a main award would meet criteria but a minor award, which is not listed in the article so I don't know how to find the information, is not. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Headies award is not a "minor award". It is the biggest music award in Nigeria. If Nigeria was the United States, the Headies would be the Grammys. The editor (or editors) who wrote this article freelinked the award's 2007 article, and not the award's main page. I freelinked it in my last post to illustrate my point. Either way, the fact the the artist got nominated for his country's biggest music award is enough for his article to pass WP:MUSICBIO. versace1608 (talk) 04:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the case is settled. The artist actually won the "Best Vocal Male Performance" award at the award's 2007 ceremony. Here's a citation to proof that:[61]. versace1608 (talk) 04:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Best Vocal Male Performance" is a major award at the minor ceremony of "The Headies". Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:27, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I wonder why Walter Görlitz is bent on proving that the article does not meet Wikipedia standard. Saying that Obiwon does not meet Wikipedia standard is simply saying that no Nigerian indigenous musician can ever meet Wikipedia standard for now. I would have included more reliable sources to buttress my argument but I believe the points Versace raised is sufficient to make the article stay. I am pretty surprised why it should even be nominated for deletion in the first place because there should not even be a discussion about it! Darreg (talk) 14:28, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not bent on proving that the article does not meet Wikipedia standards. I am simply commenting that The Headies are not major awards. The award itself confirms notability. Please refrain from commenting on editors. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:38, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I bet you expect an african award to be recognised and accepted by the international community (non africans) first before it would be categorized as being Major in Nigeria, smh4u...and am sorry for misunderstanding your previous position on the Obiwon's article i was carried away by ur previous persistence...and please am not gonna read, reply or comment on this discussion page anymore so any further reply would never be seen by me...i know you have quite a number of user rights on Wikipedia, and might decide to tag me for a ban for speaking my mind and replying you for the second time, but guess what? i care not!...remain blessed bro! *exits discussion page forever* — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darreg (talk • contribs) 20:09, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong on all fronts. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:13, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Darreg: You need to apologize to Walter Gorlitz. Wikipedia is not the place for personal attacks. Walter Gorlitz is entitled to his opinion just like we are. I understand what you're saying, but Gorlitz was only voicing his opinion. I don't know the reason why he thinks the Headies is not a major award. I know for a fact that an accolade that awards outstanding achievements in Nigeria and Africa is major. The Headies may not be an "international award" in terms of awarding other acts outside of Africa, but it is certainly a continental award. In my opinion, the biggest music award in every country is a major award and a huge deal. People like Gorlitz may not see it like that. versace1608 (talk) 21:30, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problems with accepting that it's the most important music industry award in Nigeria and that winning such a prominent award qualifies as notability. Don't misunderstand that. I agree with your assessment that on the scale of international music, winning a Nigerian music award doesn't rank with other awards. I hope that clarifies my position. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:29, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Walter Görlitz, the word 'notability' is relative. And the word 'international' is relative as well. You are basing your argument on personal sentiments, rather than logic or even Wikipedia standards.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 22:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The subject of the article is notable enough and it doesn't meet Wikipedia's deletion policy. It shouldn't have been considered for deletion in the first place. @versace1608, please always try to tag music talk pages you come across with their related Wikiprojects, so that the project members can be aware when issues like this come up and they can also assess the importance and quality of such articles. Darreg, please calm down :)--Jamie Tubers (talk) 22:40, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Jamie Tubers: I will try to do that. I stumbled upon this this article while going through Stanleytux's contributions. If it wasn't for him editing this article, I wouldn't have come across it. I'm not really familiar with the subject. versace1608 (talk) 23:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay..... btw, I see @Darreg's point anyway. I didn't see anywhere in Wiki's policy that Wikipedia is a 'western affair'. Out of the various articles I've come across on Wikipedia, I've heard of maybe just 5% and I don't even understand why many should be on Wikipedia as I've never heard of the awards they won or know exactly what they are notable for. It doesn't mean I should nominate them for deletion. lol. that's the reason guidelines and criteria exist lol.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 00:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Given the detailed nature of this article, I believe the proposal for deletion is baseless and misguided Sidewinder message me! 15:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Actually the article is not detailed with references and so stating that the proposal is baseless is in itself baseless. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting comment - Relisting this because some of the keep !votes above are not guideline- or policy- based. NorthAmerica1000 01:35, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly meets both WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG per the sources already in the article. Jinkinson talk to me 01:56, 24 March 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. → Call me Hahc21 06:04, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Friedland

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

This article, written by a now-blocked COI editor who is almost certainly a paid editor, is in my opinion too promotional to rewrite by normal editing, and is at in addition of such borderline notability that it is not worth the total rewriting that would be necessary.

The best practice with such articles is to remove them entirely. We do not prohibit paid editing, but we do prohibit paid editing like this, that reflects the financial conflict of interest. If an editor without COI wants to do a proper job of it, it can be started over. DGG ( talk ) 00:05, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The nomination sums up the issues at hand and I would go further to argue that the subject doesn't meet WP:N or WP:BIO. The entire article reeks as promotion and the subject's notability is questionable at best. He leads a small company that hasn't made much of an indent on the world, and the greatest claim to fame is the envelopes for the Oscars. That gave him passing coverage leading up to the Oscars (anything tangentially related to Oscars gets a little bit of coverage these days). But there wasn't the in-depth coverage we need to show enduring notability. ThemFromSpace 14:58, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I mostly agree that this is a purely promotional article, and should get blowed-up. However, the above comment referencing "enduring notability" concerns me, as notability is not temporary. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 17:57, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You're misreading that guideline. Our notability guidelines are created to roughly judge which topics have enduring notability. My wording was specifically referring to WP:NOTNEWS, the policy which differentiates enduring vs. temporary notability. ThemFromSpace 18:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:32, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE. The Bushranger One ping only 05:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pankaj Bajaj

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

No notability or coverage. He wrote an article in the Times of India once, and has some automatically-generated biographies...and that's about it. Ironholds (talk) 04:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:09, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteNot a notable person. Poorly referenced article. Jussychoulex (talk) 06:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:31, 24 March 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. → Call me Hahc21 06:03, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mitch Meyers

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

promotional article for non notable advertising executive. Part of a coordinated publicity campaign with the company and her colleague, nominated at the two adjacent afds. DGG ( talk ) 07:12, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:10, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:11, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:31, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article about the company she runs was recently deleted. That company appears to be what she's most notable for, so if her company isn't notable enough she isn't either. Elassint Hi 08:41, 25 March 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. → Call me Hahc21 06:03, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Carlin

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:AUTH, two self-published books doesn't meet criteria. Not sure about the magazine. [62] isn't mentioned in article, but has more info on subject. C1776MTalk 00:31, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not notable as above. Further, the magazine reference is an e-magazine that will not even be published until May, 2014. The link above should be http://popfizzacademy.com/60/ which shows that the magazine and the two books are/will be published by popfizzacademy.com. It seems unlikely to be a coincidence that this article was created by the single puprose account user:popfizzacademy. Maybe a speedy promo? Meters (talk) 01:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe it meets the WP:CSD, but I definitely agree that it's WP:COI, that's why I included the link. C1776MTalk 01:21, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, that's why I left it as a delete rather than a speedy delete. File creator now listed at wp:UAA Meters (talk) 01:33, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I misread your previous comment "speedy promo"→promote to speedy. Got it now. C1776MTalk 01:41, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:30, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've tidied up the article, just in case, but support delete for reasons stated above. Emeraude (talk) 11:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Obvious self-promotion page, I actually think it would meet CSD-A7. Also, account creator has been blocked for spamming. Vectro (talk) 17:09, 30 March 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 as a copy of The Examined Life. While this was created in January, the thing is that we already have an article for this specific book. I'm closing this early because we don't need two identical copies of the same article. There might be some issues with notability, but the main point of this sees to be to get rid of the extra copy. I don't really see where this needs to go through a second week at AfD. For the one trying to make a disambiguation page, that's the sort of thing you should first discuss on the article's talk page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:12, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Examined Life (Robert Nozick book)

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

This article is a duplicate of another article: The Examined Life. The creator turned the original article into a disambiguation page (which I have reverted), and then created this duplicate page as a replacement. I'm nominating it for deletion, because changes of this nature aren't allowed. It is the equivalent of doing a cut-and-paste move, and it's unacceptable for the same reasons, since it displaces the revision history of the page. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:51, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Proposal defines situation accurately. I think this may have been some kind of attempt at a content fork, regarding disagreements over Nozick's ideas (and when it was forked, the original article was slightly NPOV regarding Nozick's inheritance tax reforms, but that has been corrected). This is an unnecessary duplicate. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:35, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:30, 24 March 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 Yahoo! Games. → Call me Hahc21 06:03, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Word Racer

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

Unsourced, fails WP:N. A redirect could be made instead to Yahoo! Games. RJaguar3 | u | t 01:25, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:55, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:56, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Yahoo! Games seems sufficient; I can not find coverage or other evidence to suggest that a standalone article is warranted.  Gong show 01:08, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Yahoo! Games - unclear notability, no significant RS coverage, a search shows many forum posts, but no RS articles.Dialectric (talk) 16:02, 30 March 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 05:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dogtail

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

Self-published or trivial references. I can't find any material to support WP:GNG or other notability guidelines. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:26, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:26, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While this software technology may be on the rise and eventually clear the notability threshold, so far it seems to be premature to warrant full Wikipedia article status. It looks like much of the "coverage" of it is in an online "magazine" (those quotes are all deliberate) published by the distributor of the software ("published" might warrant quotes as well), which to me is a signal that it lacks inherent notability (the cart is coming before the horse). I could not find multiple instances of significant coverage in independent reliable third-party secondary sources with editorial oversight and broad public distribution/ appeal. Yet. KDS4444Talk 09:12, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it is notable enough for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScotXW (talk • contribs) 16:55, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Hahc21 06:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - software article of unclear notability. The redhat magazine refs are RS coverage, but all by the same author, Len DiMaggio, in the same magazine, and primarily how-to articles. In the absence of additional RS coverage, notability is not established. A search revealed blogs, but no additional RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA 'Ldimaggi' who may well be the author of those redhat articles given the similar name.Dialectric (talk) 07:07, 1 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. → Call me Hahc21 05:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jemmy framework

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

Self-published or trivial references. I can't find any material to support WP:GNG or other notability guidelines. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:28, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:25, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm unable to find coverage or another indication that this meets WP:GNG or WP:NSOFT.  Gong show 01:03, 25 March 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. → Call me Hahc21 05:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Levan Kirakosyan

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

Non-notable boxer, unreferenced Peter Rehse (talk) 12:35, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 12:35, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep His EBU title is enough to meet WP:NBOX. Mdtemp (talk) 19:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I always considered EBU to be minor but yes its in the list (I inserted the link in his article).Peter Rehse (talk) 19:24, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think an EBU championship automatically shows notability, but that was the consensus at WT:BOXING. Mdtemp (talk) 16:52, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:23, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm a bit underwhelmed by the new criteria for notability in boxing, but WP is based on consensus so I'm going to go with the view that an EBU title shows notability. Papaursa (talk) 04:18, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lalgola raj

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

Fails WP:GNG JMHamo (talk) 14:00, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:22, 24 March 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 05:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Centr

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

Delete, I'm not finding sources to back up that this band passes GNG. This is a Russian band so there may be sources in that language however I do not speak it. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:03, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails WP:MUSICBIO and lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. STATic message me! 18:01, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Very famous group. MTV Russia Music Award for Best Hip-Hop Project in 2008. I will add a couple of Russian-language references to the article now, but for English speakers, here's a proof, they are in the MTV Russia Music Award for Best Hip-Hop Project template in the Russian Wikipedia. --Moscow Connection (talk) 09:28, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Here's a lengthy article, published in December 2009 in the newspaper Moskovskiy Komsomolets. The second sentence says "Since their first album "Качели", released in 2007, and until now CENTR is the most popular rap group of our country." The article is called "Rap Tragedy of the Year", referring to the breakup of the group in the summer of 2009. --Moscow Connection (talk) 10:17, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I propose to cut the article to a reasonable length, leaving just a few sentences in good English, and then keep it. Cause it is badly translated and would require a long time to correct and to source properly. But the article should stay cause CENTR is one of Russia's most renowned hip hop groups of all time and Wikipedia will profit if the article is kept. The group passes WP:GNG (very famous, lots of coverage over the years) and WP:MUSIC (MTV Russia Music Award). --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:17, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good enough for me. I appreciate that you found the sources in the language. Thank you. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:00, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • But I didn't do anything. I just sourced several sentences, proved notability and was hoping the author improves/rewrites it. I'm not sure what I can do. Because the article is largely unsourced and it would take forever to source it. Because I proposed to cut it down, but I think I don't really want to delete most of it. It looks like the article was translated from the Russian Wikipedia. The Russian article is also largely unsourced, but it looks like some people look after it. So all/most of the facts are probably correct... --Moscow Connection (talk) 03:08, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just mean that the sources you added (in my view) were enough for the subject to meet the threshold of notability. The article still needs more work (and sources) but its enough to move on from this AFD (I think, and so does the nom from the looks of it). Stalwart111 03:22, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. The Bushranger One ping only 05:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Study Society

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

I cannot find reliable 3rd party coverage of this organisation which fails WP:NCORP. Its author is an WP:SPA and it reads like a WP:ADVERT, with apparent WP:COI issues which are unconvincingly denied. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: I see no credible indication of a COI, but that shouldn't make a difference in a deletion discussion anyway, since the article's inclusion is based on the merits of the subject, not who created the article. -- Atama頭 20:25, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The present article is a self-sourced advert. If kept, it needs to be rewritten and sourced to third party views that are independent of its own promoters: [63], [64] - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:45, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second note: I've listed this at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 March 5 which is a requirement for AfDs. -- Atama頭 21:14, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. -- Atama頭 21:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Atama頭 21:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As the main contributor to this page, who collected and published the material, I will try to make the case for keeping the page.

Before I start I would like to point out that the page has been happily on the Wikipedia system for two years until today, when one person who appears to be running a campaign based on his personal beliefs, started an attack on multiple fronts culminating in this attempt to delete it. One edit he made (at 17:21) sums up his agenda: He changed "One of the Society’s aims is to seek contact and dialogue with like-minded individuals, teachers and organisations from the fields of science, philosophy, religion and the arts." to "One of the Society’s aims is to seek contact and dialogue with like-minded individuals, teachers and organisations from the fields of pseudoscience, philosophy, religion and the arts." Note that several of the people listed are in fact "real" scientists with reputable careers and articles in mainstream journals.

First, the organisation is a "School" set up by P.D. Ouspensky and was run after his death by his nominated successor, to continue and further develop his work, for which he gave instructions. The information about what happened to his "school" after he died is interesting and important and has been collected here and should be preserved. The page covers the history from 1951, a few years after Ouspensky died, to the present day.

Second, (and missing from the page at the moment) is that Ouspensky's archive papers, previously unpublished, were contributed to the famous Yale historical collection by the Study Society (I have found a citation for this.)

Third, there is a particular problem with finding the history and citations for this organisation. The reason is that it was, in accordance with Ouspenky's rules, a secretive society - members were not allowed to speak of it, or its work or members. This gradually changed and that meant I was able to learn more - see all the references, especially Lachman's book, Joyce Collin-Smith's book (which is critical of the Study Society), and Paul Mason's biography of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. It is likely that its actual effects were greater than its published effects because of the secrecy, but this cannot be supported by citations. This unusual problem should be taken into account when assessing its notability.

Fourth, the organisation was instrumental in arranging Maharishi Mahesh Yogi's appearance in London at the Royal Albert Hall, at a time when meditation was new. This event had a significant impact on culture and society, to the extent that nowadays meditation is commonplace.

Finally, let me address the criticism that this is no more than an advertisement. I am disappointed that some people feel it reads like that. This is my first attempt at a Wikipedia article and I thought I had kept it factual, with every statement backed by citations. I would of course be more than happy to cut out anything that sounds promotional. Although I have a keen interest in Ouspensky's philosophy and legacy I have no interest in promoting this organisation and that was not my intention. --Cotswold Tiger (talk) 23:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for the time being. The article needs to be reworked, and the point of view is slanted, but I feel that the subject appears to be notable enough to justify giving this article a chance. Keep the article and give the author and others a chance to rework it. Ducknish (talk) 22:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This entry should stay. It portrays an important and interesting part of the history of meditation in the West and of the development of non-dualist philosophy in the last 70 years. It could certainly be expanded and better-referenced and I imagine will be once the decision to keep it is made. The narrow beliefs of one individual should not be a reason to delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldmanbeaver (talk • contribs) 19:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:51, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A lot of effort has gone into the article but no amount of dressing will hide the fact that the refs are all primary or trivial - I checked them. The article is promotional and intended to sell. Szzuk (talk) 17:53, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE. The Bushranger One ping only 05:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Appsplit

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

Non-notable self-promotion. See Special:Contributions/Iice74 for a whole bunch of the same Andy Dingley (talk) 15:35, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Hahc21 18:00, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:CORP. In a search I could not find significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources. The tone is not encyclopedic, but that could be fixed. Lack of notability cannot be fixed. --MelanieN (talk) 21:40, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:18, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica1000 02:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abiola Abrams

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

Doesn't meet WP:NAUTHOR or WP:BIO. Sources cited are low quality and a search for better sources in factiva turned up only very brief mentions. Article appears to have been created as an autobiography and updated by a paid editor last year. SmartSE (talk) 15:14, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Hahc21 18:00, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:17, 24 March 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. → Call me Hahc21 05:46, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ceiton workflow system

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

Fails CORPDEPTH. Might qualify for unambiguous advertising CSD. Every single ref appears to be the organization's website, a pr website, or otherwise promotional. — Rhododendrites talk |  20:08, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not about an organization or company, it's about a software product. — Preceding unsigned comment added by U2fanboi (talk • contribs) 08:05, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - just added some relevant links, one is in German, hope that's not a problem --U2fanboi (talk) 08:59, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there are more third-party references now then when the mark for deletion was added. The article is about the software product, not the company per se and it seems to be pretty objecttive. Mtmoore321 (talk) 10:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where? A diff shows 3 new refs, one of which (the GBooks link) is duplicated. That one is a basic mention of CEITON that takes up part of one bulletpoint (WP:N requires that sources establishing notability be "more than a passing mention"). Another is someone's blog post that lists Ceiton among a list of vendors. The Springer link, which is the one that looks the best per the URL, doesn't mention this at all. --— Rhododendrites talk |  14:45, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would claim the book is 'significant coverage' rather than a 'passing mention' as it addresses the relevant topics directly namely, the following details; that it's a workflow system, that it's used by media companies and that it allows integration using web services.
      • the 'list of vendors', as you call it, is more than a list as there is a small review of each vendor or their technology. Because it's a personal blog it might be seen as even more objective than e.g. magazine articles from trade magazines that so often make up the references, as these are often beholden to the companies they are reviewing insofar as they are also their primary source of advertising revenue.
      • I've fixed the Springer link, I had linked to the previous page. It actually criticizes the Ceiton technology so it can hardly be unambiguous advertising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by U2fanboi (talk • contribs) 16:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Hahc21 18:04, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:14, 24 March 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. → Call me Hahc21 05:47, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1965 – Through the Looking Glass

1965 – Through the Looking Glass (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Album doesn't appear to meet any type of notability requirements as no reliable sources could be found that truly establish this album's independent notability for a standalone article. Article was deleted via PROD but was recovered after objection from the original author following a nearly 6 year absence. Return was shortlived as the author has disappeared yet again following a two-day return two months ago without making any improvement to the article that was deleted last year. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:22, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:20, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:20, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I am unable to find coverage in reliable sources for this compilation album; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS.  Gong show 00:39, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Hahc21 18:06, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:09, 24 March 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.

Okay, this is a though close and it is going to need a big explanation. I am closing this as delete. Although this discussion has four keep votes and 2 delete votes (yes, I know AFD is not a vote), all keep votes but one used the same argument: "length is not a reason to delete". However, when an article is taken to AFD, the notability of its subject must be evaluated regardless of what the nominator said. This means that keep votes must present evidence that the subject is notable, and this was not the case here. I saw some interesting comments by Mz7 and Necrothesp, but I conclude that they might have abstained from going with a formal suggestion because they were unsure about the subject's notability. Opposite to that, the two delete votes made the compelling argument that sources to verify notability didn't exist outside of primary sources, which are excluded from GNG. Therefore, my conclusion after two reslistings is that the subject does not meet notability, given that the opposite was not proven. If any editor disagrees with the close, feel free to discuss it at WP:DRV → Call me Hahc21 05:56, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Archbishop Alexy

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

The article is too short. The article contains olny one external link and this link leads to site of his church. ~ Чръный человек (talk) 15:33, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: I have reformatted this nomination using Template:Afd2. Mz7 (talk) 19:43, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm not entirely familiar with Christianity, but if a person is granted the title "Archbishop", would that be considered a "well-known and significant honor" per WP:ANYBIO? Also, notability depends on the availability of sources, not on the sources which have been included in the article. The length of an article is also not a valid reason to delete it. Mz7 (talk) 19:49, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep An article being too short is an argument for expanding it, not deleting it.TheLongTone (talk) 20:17, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have sought for more sources, but I can't find any mention outside of the Church he is part of. While Archbishop is a major title, the Church he belongs to seems to be fairly small. So, this seems a case of grand titles for small organizations.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:17, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep An article being too short is an argument for expanding it, not deleting it. There is nothing wrong with an external link to his church. In fact, one would expect such a thing.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Hahc21 18:38, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Note that while he holds the title of archbishop, he is head of a small church which is not recognised by other Orthodox churches. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:05, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As Metropolitan he is head of a Russian Orthodox Church denomination, albeit a splinter group. This is certainly enough to make him notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 00:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article has been on here since 2006WikiOriginal-9 (talk)
  • Delete. 1) No reliable sources in the article. 2) This "Russian Orthodox Church denomination" is not Russian Orthodox Church denomination. It is a separate small non-notable group which just uses this name and adds word "true". There are many such small and true or very true churches. Debi07 (talk) 22:55, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Could use expansion, but length shouldn't be a reason for deletion. Could potentially be merged with Russian True Orthodox Church though. Adamh4 (talk) 21:23, 27 March 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. deleted per WP:CSD#G5 Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:27, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Telephone hypnosis

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

Subject is a fringe theory and references have been give undue weight Flat Out let's discuss it 00:54, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - It may be worth a mention on the general hypnosis page. I can't see that there is enough information for its own article. Bali88 (talk) 01:11, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete One more paranoia-tinged article from the extremely active [sock farm] apparently on a mission to warn of the dangers of electromagnetic radiation, government eavesdropping, and hypnosis by phone. G-book hits show brief mentions of it as a seldom-used technique, but I don't see any RS sources that treat it in such an in depth fashion that would warrant a standalone article on the topic. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:30, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No real evidence of notability - and the article is making claims with regard to the medical efficacy of telephone hypnosis which aren't even remotely compliant with WP:MEDRS. I seriously doubt that there is enough legitimately-sourced content to make a merge meaningful. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Appears to be a WP:FRINGE theory and also fails from a lack of reliable sources. mikeman67 (talk) 15:12, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; it's impossible to write a neutral article when the topic is neglected by reliable sources. bobrayner (talk) 18:11, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have the special power of "admin hypnosis". I have thus hypnotised the closing admin to delete this on the basis that it is complete, unadulterated bollocks. Please apply a suction microphone to your telephone and then adjust your tinfoil hat. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:09, 25 March 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 Communications High School. The Bushranger One ping only 05:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Inkblot

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

Non-notable school paper, with no third party reliable sources. Tinton5 (talk) 20:08, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge / Redirect to Communications High School Very few school newspapers are notable and there is no evidence that this paper is one of the exceptions. The material should be merged to the article for the school with appropriate sources added there. Alansohn (talk) 16:26, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 00:52, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - or merge, if the school exists. Does not meet notability standards Bali88 (talk) 01:03, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus--Ymblanter (talk) 07:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Islamic and Secular Studies

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

Total absence of evidence. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:01, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mauritius-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is a high school, and meets notability standard wp:NHS as far as i can tell. It is verifiable, e.g. this link verifying, found easily by noticing the school is listed in List of secondary schools in Mauritius and then looking at references in that list-article. The lack of references in the article itself suggests tagging is appropriate, but the topic seems notable. --doncram 04:18, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Appears to be a secondary school, kept by long-standing precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no references independently supporting notability. Neutralitytalk 21:07, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article lacks references to even prove this is a real institution.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:39, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 00:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unless the author can find some sources. Thus far, nothing has demonstrated that it is notable....or even exists. Bali88 (talk) 01:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unreferenced so no sources to verify existence. LibStar (talk) 05:31, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. A quick Google search will confirm it exists (you could actually do that in the time it takes to claim its existence is not confirmed!), although I can find no substantial coverage. Nevertheless, as a secondary school... -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES - it exists. ansh666 05:54, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Based on ansh666's link, it seems to exist. Could use some more information, but definitely should stick around until then. Adamh4 (talk) 21:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Hahc21 05:37, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. (non-admin closure) Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:14, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Diaosi

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

Non-English neologism that fails notability DP 00:43, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I can understand some of the issues, however, if Japanese Otaku is considered acceptable, I would think that the Chinese Diaosi would fit in as well. I for one welcome the opportunity to understand more about this part of one of the world's largest population groups.The Ukulele Dude - Aggie80 (talk) 02:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Wouldn't calling it a "Non-English neologism" be a form of systemic bias? We have all sorts of articles about concepts for the western world, but when a Chinese social term is introduced, it's deemed as non-notable? Think about it, this term is by no means "non-notable" - I know that WP:GOOGLEHITS isn't an absolute measure of notability, however "屌丝" gives 30,400,000 google results; the majority of Chinese people don't even use Google, they use Baidu -- a Baidu search brings back 100,000,000 results. --benlisquareT•C•E 02:23, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Seems like an obvious keep. This "non-English neologism" is already supported by six different English-language sources that are directly about it, and we could find hundreds more in Chinese. The article does have issues, but notability is clearly not one of them. Madalibi (talk) 14:03, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article needs some work, but it should be kept.--DThomsen8 (talk) 16:17, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Being a "non-English" topic is of absolutely no consequence at all and it certainly is not a valid reason for deletion. The English Wikipedia has millions of articles about subjects with no connection to the English language or the Anglo-Saxon culture in the broad sense. The claim that it fails notability is simply evidence that the nominator doesn't understand the policy, the references are solid, and they're even in English. Suggest the nonminator studies WP:Systemic bias and WP:Notability as this nomination has no merit at all. BTW the writing style and grammar issues are fixable. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Pleanty of reliable sources. I see no reason why it should be deleted.Makro (talk) 21:17, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep You would have to delete the one in the Chinese Wikipedia too, Just because it isn't primarily English means that you delete it. What if everybody in China just suddenly forgot how to speak their language and had to learn EnglishWikiOriginal-9 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:38, 24 March 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) 00:22, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Southgate Mall (Missoula)

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

A shopping mall. Has it any notability outside of Missoula? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:07, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  As per the definition at [65], this is a super-regional center.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:16, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There are many other local shopping malls with articles. To pick one for AFD out of the many is ineffectual. Might be better off applying for a change to the notability guidelines. This comment not to be considered a vote either way as I'm editing as an IP. 68.146.70.124 (talk) 02:58, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Some sources: [66], [67], [68], [69]. NorthAmerica1000 15:04, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 00:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Largest mall of its region seems sufficient. Certainly the subject of multiple instances of significant coverage, see for example NA1000 above. GNG pass. Carrite (talk) 05:06, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Carrite. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:55, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per others. --AmaryllisGardener talk 22:46, 25 March 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 discussion centred on whether the sources were sufficient to meet the notability guidelines. In particular, the significance of the interviews was questioned. However, the consensus is that WP:GNG is met. NAC. Bridgeplayer (talk) 15:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Taaki

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

I don't think subject matter passes WP:NOTABILITY. Genjix (talk) 09:18, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Sufficient footnotes showing to constitute notability in Wikipedia terms, including British and German interviews. With all due respect to the subject, people may not "really need" to know about you, but they might want to. No BLP issues that I can spot. A nicely done piece. Carrite (talk) 00:08, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Don't know if the subject's post was reverse psychology or whatever, but appears notable and well written, except..... Need the immense amount of external links taken out of the body. North8000 (talk) 02:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • How can I get certain things changed that are incorrect and/or slightly dated? I can provide references where needed. Genjix (talk) 09:20, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We'll work on this if it closes keep here. Thanks for asking and not leaping in yourself; sometimes self-editing is acceptable, but it's a pretty fine line to tread. If this closes keep (and it should) we'll get it fixed up and I'll be happy to clue you in on what the culture is regarding acceptable and unacceptable edits on pages of which one is the subject. No worries. Carrite (talk) 05:01, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article isn't great, and there isn't an overwhelming number of hits, but the interview with the Tagesspiegel itself is already a pretty god indication of notability. Drmies (talk) 01:00, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tagesspiegel is a small, political newspaper with a circulation of 120000, if that. As I am European, to explain to American readers, coverage in that paper is analogous to coverage in a very minor libertarian newspaper in a city such as Seattle. Antiselfpromotion (talk) 16:42, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A long-established newspaper with a circulation of 120,000 (or 148,000 according to our article) is hardly "small" or "very minor". Phil Bridger (talk) 18:26, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The topical interviews very clearly do not establish notability under WP:BIO. That there are many footnotes does not establish notability by itself. The sources are not detailed profiles of the subject. They are interviews in which he is consulted for factual information about a matter of topical news. The rest of the article is original research about the subject's political viewpoints (with no notability established as a political commentator), as drawn from his own online writings on message boards. Antiselfpromotion (talk) 16:42, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Antiselfpromotion misstates WP:GNG and WP:OUTCOMES. Sufficient citations of a good quality throws the burden of proof onto the nominator, by presuming notability. The nomination has not stated why a presumptively notable person's article should be deleted, other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Bearian (talk) 19:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I read the citations, he was not 'covered' under WP:GNG. He was asked about something topical. Someone consulted by press on e.g. the BP oil spill would not be notable on that basis, even if there had been multiple consultations. The citations establish that he should perhaps be listed in the article on Bitcoin, nothing more. Antiselfpromotion (talk) 01:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2014_March_24&oldid=1142628244"