Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 February 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 18 February 20 February >

Purge server cache

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

The result was Snow close and speedy delete. This is a mixture of a snow close as well as a speedy delete via WP:A7 (No explanation of significance (real person/animal/organization/web content/organized event) There's simply nothing here to show notability and a search brings up nothing. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2freehosting.com[edit]

2freehosting.com (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 web host. No sources other than its website. Creator is likely COI. PROD declined by a sock of the creator. Safiel (talk) 23:09, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Just one of a zillion hosting companies, no special claim to notability and no significant coverage online from reliable sources. Ruby Murray 23:21, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:NCORP. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 23:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The article fails to meet any notability criteria (neither WP:CORP nor WP:N). The only sources other than the company's own webpage are an advertisements, a website technical stats page (uptime and response time of the site), a discussion forum, and a directory listing. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:12, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 19:18, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Canada After the Blackout (Revolution TV series)[edit]

Canada After the Blackout (Revolution TV series) (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 creator, was previously warned about adding original fan fiction into Revolution (TV series), and admitted the addition was false on their user page: User_talk:Ramramgeorge#Revolution_.28TV_series.29. This looks to be an expansion, and should be deleted if found to be fan fiction. I do not have personal knowledge of the show, and so others must vouch for its authenticity or lack thereof. --Animalparty-- (talk) 22:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The page is not popular and it will not be linked in Revolution (TV series). The page has received no views as current and there is nothing to worry about. There is no need for deletion unless you can PROVE the page is causing problems amongst the 5 viewers that have viewed it. IF it was linked in Revolution (TV series) then it is something that must be deleted. However it is not. --Animalparty-- needs to worry about larger problems on Wikipedia rather than this insignificant article. Therefore it should not be deleted unless it receives 100+ views and is one the first page when one searches Revolution (TV series).

--Animalparty--, how on earth did you find this article on Wikipedia? It must have taken quite some searching.

I found the article by browsing the Special:NewPagesFeed, where newly created articles can be viewed and reviewed, and blatant hoaxes hopefully identified and swiftly deleted. No matter how silly and innocuous you think this article is, if it is a blatant hoax and/or original fiction, it has no place in an encyclopedia based on facts. Please read what Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Do not create hoaxes. --Animalparty-- (talk) 00:01, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - whether the article created is popular or not is irrelevant. Wikipedia is not a web host for your fan fiction or even for extensive fictional plot material. There's really no context in which material like this would be appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia. Stalwart111 00:50, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:MADEUP and a rather poor attempt at a WP:WALLEDGARDEN (you put it in article space, it is eventually going to be linked to the main article). There are plenty of other place this could be hosted, but definitely not here (personally I don't think most Revolution fans care about anything outside the canon plot of the show at all; United States of Wisconsin, seriously?). Nate • (chatter) 01:54, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fanfic that was rejected from the main article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First of all... this is NOT my article. I have no clue who "ramramgeorge" is. However, I did read his/her article and well... it was good for a laugh and all, but this insignificant piece of "fan fiction" (as inappropriate as it is) is not causing any problems. Only YOU seem to be acting up on all this. Only god knows why he chose Wikipedia for this, BUT its a hoax that is not harming anyone... after looking into the case I realized that this IS an improvement over the disruptive editing he was doing before. HE is not ruining Wikipedia's reputation and his article is not viral. Once his article receives more than 100 views I will be ecstatic to nominate it for deletion. There is all sorts of junk on Wikipedia that has caused many more problems than his article. I understand this is one giant hoax, but once again... give the page 100 views or so and then consider deleting it. Leave it alone, and delete ANY link on other articles that lead to the article.

Also, it is a MUCH better storyline than the actual revolution (TV series), and I think naming things are hard enough so the "United States of Wisconsin" is a bit corny I agree to that.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 22 February 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. Very little by way of policy based argument on the keep side. Mojo Hand (talk) 17:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CardsApp[edit]

CardsApp (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 mobile phone app. Zero hits on Google News, no references to third-party sites in the article, no real third party coverage on a google search. User has only edited this article, and had another article on the "merchant's control panel" for this app speedy deleted. Possible WP:SELFPROMOTION, though the article doesn't really read like a blatant ad to me. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 22:21, 19 February 2014 (UTC) 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 22:21, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • `. CardApp is very notable in China, with more than 1 million users. Also there are 7 references to third party independent sites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.80.217.70 (talk) 09:00, 20 February 2014 (UTC) — [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete. Advertisement of an apparently non-notable product. The sources cited are splogs. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:28, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (struck since you can only say Keep once per user). I bet "apps worth" blog would like to know he is operating a "splog". No advertising material what so ever in this article. Pure informational content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.80.217.70 (talk) 10:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This app is very "notable", also in Israel, where the biggest loyalty club (110,000 customers)is working with this app. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.102.234.154 (talk) 10:55, 20 February 2014 (UTC) — [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete Reads like marketing copy, no reliable sources. Simonm223 (talk) 15:05, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Insufficient evidence of notability. Wikipedia isn't here to provide free advertising. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm not worried about the way the article is written, if necessary it could be rewritten to seem a little less like marketing information. But there's no evidence of notability here, and coverage by blogs doesn't count. If the app catches on and gets attention, and we can provide significant coverage in reliable sources, then the article may be recreated at a future date. But it's premature to have an article at this time. -- Atama頭 17:03, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Hi guys, CardsApp is famous in Israel. Rewrite the article if seems like an ad, but it has no promotional content in my opinion. This is a major app and why shouldn't Wikipedia hold a page about it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.159.221.48 (talk) 18:01, 20 February 2014 (UTC) — [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment - I am as well, so far all keep arguments have been from SPAs, so I'm wondering what your argument for notability is. Not just to challenge your !vote, but possibly to change my mind. -- Atama頭 17:51, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly - as the first non-SPA account to speak in favour of keeping at all I'm interested in the rationale as much to ensure I didn't miss something as anything else. Simonm223 (talk) 19:41, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The article doesn't look like an ad, but it needs improvement. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 22:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So no comment on the notability of the subject? 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 22:28, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is marketing speech, for example the assertion that the app makes it so that there is no need for plastic cards (maybe that's the intent, but the article makes it sound like this app has successfully made lives easier). That's just one example. It's really minor though and just requires some small rewrites, which is why I think the "not an advertisement" argument is a bit of a straw man argument since none of the deletion arguments in this discussion were based solely on the advertising copy. Any arguments to keep the article that don't address the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources are not addressing the main concern from those asking to delete the article. -- Atama頭 23:59, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. This is obviously has nothing to do WP:NOTADVERTISING. Read it twice and no advertising there. This app is not yet notable in western world but I think it's kinda famous in Asia so we should keep it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.159.221.48 (talk) 08:33, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I found a lot of info, the app is notable for sure. The article seems to be clear of advertising and etc... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.102.234.154 (talk) 10:55, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note These last two unsigned are double votes from IP editors who have already voted. I've struck the votes. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 14:20, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete blatant promo, no truly 3rd-party sources about any actual notability. --Vituzzu (talk) 11:37, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In Israel, cardsapp is very popular. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.65.164.20 (talk) 21:01, February 22, 2014‎ (UTC)— [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment The above keep also from an apparent SPA. I'm seriously suspecting some IP jumping going on here from the makers. Simonm223 (talk) 21:09, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 23 February 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. (WP:Non-admin closure) §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:04, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anant Sharma[edit]

Anant Sharma (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)

Changing this from a db-spam tag - does not seem to be an overtly promotional page, but I can see an argument for notability CaroleHenson (talk) 21:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep, clearly notable, based on the fact he was an elected member of Parliament and a national government minister. Sionk (talk) 03:52, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Governors of the states of India are by definition notable. Members of the Parliament of India are by definition notable. Members of the Cabinet are even more notable. Just because the article is not as well written as it could be does not mean this person is anything less than very notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:56, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Based upon the comments, I agree.--CaroleHenson (talk) 08:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly notable per WP:POLITICIAN. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:40, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:40, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:40, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The subject was a minister in the Government of India. Clearly passes WP:POLITICIAN. Salih (talk) 17:30, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep It seems this is a great case for a speedy keep. So, I'll remove the tag and notate the article per WP:Speedy keep.--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:41, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just say you're withdrawing your nomination and I'm sure an admin will pass by shortly to close it (after all, you've !voted twice to keep it, haha). Sionk (talk) 21:58, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's a withdrawal.--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:24, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 21:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Corcoran[edit]

Steve Corcoran (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)

Bio about a rugby player that does not meet WP:ATHLETE as the subject only played in U-21 teams. While there is some later local coverage of his work as a coach, it does not rise to the level we would consider to be significant. Article was PRODed once on concerns that it was misleading as to the subject's notability, subsequently deleted and recreated with essentially the same content and references. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not appear to have had a notable rugby career as a senior player or be otherwise notable.204.126.132.231 (talk) 17:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable and obviously not all rugby players are notable. Any rugby player is not notable would surely fail WP:RUGBY, that's for sure. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 22:09, 26 February 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 Features of the Marvel Universe. And merge from the history at editorial discretion.  Sandstein  08:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Attilan[edit]

Attilan (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 does not establish notability independent of Marvel Comics through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 20:59, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:59, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Features of the Marvel Universe. The summary already present in that article is sufficient, and adding in all of, or even a significant portion of, the content of Attilan would give it undue weight in proportion to the other locations summarized in the article.--NukeofEarl (talk) 17:45, 27 February 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Brown (US Navy SEAL)[edit]

Adam Brown (US Navy SEAL) (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 and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 20:43, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete While in some cases having a biography published establishes notability, this biography does not seem to be one that does so.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:45, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Bloke who died. Someone (without an article) wrote a book (without an article) about him. Just not notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Similar biographical articles such as this have already been approved for the site. -- Evans1982 (talk) 04:39, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. How is this person notable? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:59, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, nobody "approves" any articles. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:09, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I approve of this. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:50, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 23 February 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) 17:12, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

West Midlands bus route 934[edit]

West Midlands bus route 934 (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)

Plainly non-notable bus route. Author removed clean up/notability templates in 2012. Wikipedia is not a travel guide and all this article contains is travel info - route, regularity and general changes which affected a number of routes in the West Midlands of England. Surely there's no justification to list every bus route that exists anywhere? Or am I missing something? Sionk (talk) 20:03, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:04, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:04, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete clearly fails WP:GNG, plus WP:NOTTRAVEL. Not even notable as a merge. Leondz (talk) 22:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- We did a wholesale deletion of all (or most) bus route articles sometime ago. This has efven less merit than most. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 02:04, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yitzchok Cohen[edit]

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

This is not the right article for Yitzchok Cohen. He want this page to be deleted. Dennicaavis (talk) 06:04, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, while the reasons for raising this discussion are a bit unusual, I can't see any reason why Rabbi Cohen deserves a Wikipedia write-up. I can see very little independent coverage about him, the more substantial coverage is in unreliable sources such as blogs. Fails WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 21:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. For anyone else who was confused as I was by the article history here: In August 2013 the nominator changed the subject of this page from Yitzchok Moshe Cohen of Yeshiva University to Chaim Yitzchok Cohen of Chabad UK. [1] This article repurposing was reverted by another editor in December [2] and a separate article about the Chabad UK rabbi was started a few days ago. [3] --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:21, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No sign of notability on GS or GN. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:33, 20 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. Don't see any claim of notability in article. mikeman67 (talk) 07:09, 23 February 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. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thigh gap[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Thigh gap (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)

Once a redirect that has been deleted before, but an article was swiftly created out of it after deletion because the editor was convinced they would produce something better without the baggage. It has been the subject of some protracted discussion at DYK without any consensus. IMHO, the problem still seems to lie in the topic being an unencyclopaedic and trivial "social" concept rather than any topic with medical or psycho-sexual relevance, that no amount of dressing up is going to produce an entry that isn't about an unworthy neologism and an WP:NPOV minefield.  Ohc ¡digame! 13:56, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep For a similar article about an earlier fashion, see wasp waist. This fashion is fairly new but seems too notable to dismiss completely. There seem to be alternatives to deletion such as merger into a more general article such as feminine beauty ideal which we should prefer per our editing policy. Andrew (talk) 14:23, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable topic. While the article unsuitable for DYK, this subject has been the subject of significant coverage from major newspapers for at least several months. Furthermore, these sources discuss the topic instead of just using the term, so WP:NEO doesn't apply and WP:NPOV isn't a reason for deletion. --Jakob (talk) 19:29, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Tabloids have gone aplomb over this topic and it has been discussed by medical professionals. I am in full disagreement with Jakec regarding its DYK appropriateness, though.--Launchballer 21:26, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tabloids go aplomb for tons of crap. If it's a real medical thing, back that up with sources. Otherwise, delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Say åæãà (talk • contribs) 02:07, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The main arguments against this article seems to be that the topic is not a serious medical topic and/or the article is not supported by reliable medical sources. Neither of these arguments is a valid basis for deletion. Not every topic that relates to the human form is a medical topic -- and the last time I looked, Wikipedia was not exclusively about medicine and did not limit itself to serious topics. This is not an article about human anatomy or other aspects of human biology, nor is it about a neologism for an aspect of human anatomy. This is an article about a sociocultural phenomenon related to people's ideas about desirable attributes of human appearance. Some examples of similar article topics, in addition to wasp waist, are tightlacing, cleavage (breasts), buttock cleavage, beauty whitewash, Four Beauties, and foot binding. Human biology has some degree of relevance to all of these topics, but sociocultural ideation is a primary focus, if not the singular primary focus, for these topics. Finally, the sourcing in the article indicates that plenty of content has been published about "thigh gaps", so the topic is notable. --Orlady (talk) 05:44, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per frequent coverage in fashion periodicals. Tezero (talk) 23:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For its deeply rooted notability in fashion, fitness, and cosmetic media sources worldwide for the better part of nearly six years. The argument to delete this article reflects well on the IQ of the individual, as his reasoning is quite subpar. I think no serious weight should be given to the opinions or judgments of said individual for the foreseeable future. Lemonsdrops (talk) 08:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm intrigued by your 'best part of six years' remark - care to explain?--Launchballer 11:23, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lemonsdrops, while you may feel quite strongly opposed to the proposed deletion and it is your right to express that view, I encourage you to refrain from personal attacks. That is the sort of thing that can get you banned and does nothing to help illustrate your point, in fact it just makes you look rude! Have a read of WP:CIVILITY and WP:EQ, and try to base your contributions on Policies if you want the admins to consider your arguments in this discussion. Dfadden (talk) 08:33, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Which kind of EQ do you mean? ;-) --Orlady (talk) 18:21, 22 February 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) 02:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shaun Wallace (cyclist)[edit]

Shaun Wallace (cyclist) (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 Shaun Wallace is referenced many times in Wikipedia,but often the links from his name take the reader to the Mastermind champion. THIS Shaun Wallace was very accomplished in his sport, earning Commonwealth games medals for England at the Games in 1982, 1994, and 1998 and was a successful professional during the 12 year gap between the first two Games listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gbshaun (talk • contribs)
  • Keep. Being an Olympic athlete should be sufficient notability on its own.--Dmol (talk) 01:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The article was a one-liner about a cyclist at the time I nominated. Usually such articles don't survive the deletion process. I don't mind if this is closed early, though. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 04:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. At the time of nomination (2 minutes after creation) it was a sourced, one-sentence, stub, which asserted (though not shown in the source given) that he was an Olympic athlete. It now has a second source, though I'd like to see a source to support the Olympian status. There may also be some COI/autobiography. But give the article a chance: not appropriate to bring to AfD. PamD 14:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    If there reliable sources, then feel free to close as a keeper. The only source I could find that says he's olympic athlete is this at sports-reference.com. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 06:23, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I've just disambiguated links in 9 cycling articles which were pointing to lawyer/quizzer Shaun Wallace. Some lazy editors there, unless perhaps the redlinks were already there when his article was created! This SW is clearly notable, with or without the Olympics. PamD 15:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And fixed another link from Cycling at the 1996 Summer Olympics – Men's 1000m time trial, where he's shown as coming 16th. PamD 15:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 18 February 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 procedural close. The nominator withdrew their deletion nomination in light of consensus to merge by the article creator. The article is now a redirect to Hawker (trade)#Argentina. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 20:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mantero[edit]

Mantero (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 seems to be a Neologism/loan word of the Argentine equivalent to Hawker (trade). Like street vendors in many places – there are hundreds of these hanging around Le Trocadéro or Trafalgar Square with their blankets, or hawkers on wheels in China, so that they can make a swift getaway with stock intact when the Bill arrive. Illegals, many of them in other countries are – they simply cannot get jobs without papers. I am not sure there is enough that distinguishes them from other street vendors, and a merger to that article would seem the logical home for this content. I have seen one article about the term written in English, but the article relies exclusively on Spanish-language sources, which would tend to indicate that the term has not "traversed" into the English language.  Ohc ¡digame! 02:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. The page may now be redirected, once the deletion request is closed. Once done, we should add as well the "Mantero redirects here" hatnote, with the links to Villa Mantero and Montero. Cambalachero (talk) 14:39, 17 February 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. j⚛e deckertalk 02:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eisenhower Tree[edit]

Eisenhower Tree (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: In the 100+ years of its existence, not once has this tree had enough information outside of trivial golf feats performed by others. The article is a copy and paste job of a subsection of Augusta National Golf Club and only exists to justify its inclusion at Deaths in 2014. The creator insists Wiki Golf is going to provide more, but based off the years of it not having its own article, and whatever else they could rustle up just be more trivial feats, I feel it's fine as a subsection. Article is a clear cut example of WP:RECENT, and should be redirected back to the golf park article, hence me also supporting a Merge. Rusted AutoParts 05:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As article creator, I'm of course in favor of keeping it. Tree is notable; its removal has been the subject of articles by multiple news sources (ESPN, ABC News, CBS, Golf Digest, Golf Channel, Politico, USA Today, etc.). The tree is called "iconic" ([4]) and "among the most famous trees in golf" ([5]). It's history in the most prestigious tournament in American golf and with a former US president makes it notable (see p. 135 in The Making of the Masters: Clifford Roberts, Augusta National, and Golf's Most Prestigious Tournament). While I admit I based it off of the entry on Augusta National Golf Club, I did my best to expand upon it though I have zero knowledge of golf. And yes, I created it because of the rules on Deaths in 2014 as I felt it notable enough to be included and have its own article. I have asked WikiProject Golf here to add to the article and to comment here on the AfD nomination as they know more about the subject than I. PS - a quick glance at articles on Category:Individual trees shows many with articles of comparable length and detail. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:58, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Its Today's news. Here at Wikipedia, we chronicle news that sticks with people throughout time. Kennedy's assassination, the Miracle at Lake Placid, Obama getting elected, those stories withstand the tests of time. A tree being removed....no. As I've stated, if it were as famous as you proclaim it to be, why in the 11 years of Wikipedia didn't it get its own article? Because its not highlightable enough. A few moments in golf history won't cut it. Anyone can use the word "iconic" to label anything. An "iconic" pizza parlour closed down recently where I'm at, where's its article? Rusted AutoParts 06:05, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If your pizza shop was part of the master's tournament or mentioned by a dozen major press outlets, is say make an article. This tree is both those things. It's mentioned in books and part of golf culture and history. If I knew more about sports I'd try to make an appropriate analogy to some other sports icon. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:34, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just want to point out that "why in the 11 years of Wikipedia didn't it get its own article?" is a classical non-argument, as it could only be answered in a speculative way (if you want to know why something's not happened, just ask the person who hasn't done it...). Stripped down to its core, it has nothing to do with the article or its subject, and everything with Wikipedia's policies. Let's never forget that notability is always created outside of the small world of Wikipedia. And btw - there's still some several millions of articles waiting to be written. --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 16:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 06:14, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 06:14, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 06:14, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't think this is notable in its own right. Phrases such as "the Tree was probably the deciding factor" and that Tiger Woods played a shot under it, doesn't strike me of being notable. So as I'm LOGGED on, I think this WOOD be delete. Chortle. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:35, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with Rusted Autoparts that the tree isn't notable enough to have its own article or to be included in the Death Section. Wikipedia is not a news service and should not be treated as one DrKilleMoff (talk) 14:01, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Created to prevent a redlink at Deaths in 2014, coincidentally by Rusted AutoParts. A few names dropped in it, which can be and was already done in the parent Augusta article. — Wyliepedia 16:04, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is a large explosion of coverage since it's being removed. While this may be accused of recentism, I feel that these and the other earlier mentions (and I'm sure there are more from offline sources such as books) means that I believe that this fulfils WP:GNG and should be kept. Also as an iconic piece of golf history, I'd say it should have it's own article. Otherwise, articles of other iconic features in other sports such as Lord's Pavilion and Statue of Bobby Moore, Wembley should be deleted too. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's a bit like comparing apples and oranges. The two you've mentioned have a wealth of information in regards to its history, while this tree doesn't aside from a few obscure golf moments. And if this tree is famous and didn't get its own article until now, where's not Rae's Creek's article? "The Big Oak Tree"'s? Ike's Pond's? Rusted AutoParts 17:34, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Add the Chained Oak to that as well! The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:30, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete or merge with the existing Augusta National Golf Club article. It's notable amongst the local community of Augusta and to golfing, but not internationally so in its own right. --Zerbey (talk) 15:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect I concur with Giant that the tree is not independently notable. Consequently, it should be condensed and merged with the Augusta National Golf Club page.
  • Keep A well-known landmark at one of the most famous golf courses in the world, home to one of the most famous golf tournaments in the world. The demise of the tree is getting plenty of mainstream sports coverage, something that obviously would not happen it if was just another tree. It does seem out of place on the Deaths list, however. Drpickem (talk) 22:05, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Not Recentism, the tree was already mentioned in this article, and as C and E mentioned, there are much less notable trees with articles on wikipedia, the standard (low bar) has already been set and also the media coverage it is getting is also just adding to notability...--Stemoc (talk) 00:10, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The above keep nominations don't hold water. "It's a landmark on a notable golf course" isn't article material and "media coverage adding to notability" isn't true as its only covering its removal, which has already been mentioned. Rusted AutoParts 00:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE - With all due respect to the content creator we are talking about a dead tree. This is not a thing of repute. If it needs to then MERGE it with [NATIONAL GOLF CLUB]but most definitely not a dedicated page of its own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Admiral238 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep - 1) the sheer number of references to this 'landmark' make it notable. When I read about something I know nothing about, I (and millions like me) immediately refer to Wikipedia to expand our knowledge base. 2) I detest the ideas of any small group of people - be they Nazis, liberals, Tea-baggers or actors - telling the population what is important (read that 'notable). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.178.97.106 (talk • contribs)
Yes! Godwin's law yet again ..... WWGB (talk) 03:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This IP hasn't edited since 2012, and this seems more like a thinly covered jab at his view of the website's politics. Rusted AutoParts 03:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:HUMAN. Many people's IPs are not static, so looking at edit frequency for a given IP tells you nothing. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't have any idea why this is for deletion. It is very well known and is notable. --Old Time Music Fan (talk) 02:31, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Again this isn't a legit argument for keeping it. It fails general notability guidelines to warrant its own article. Rusted AutoParts 02:44, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not to be rude, but will you rebut every "keep"? Not everyone agrees with you about what is "notable", just as not everyone agrees with my (yourself included). EvergreenFir (talk) 02:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Im rebutting the ones that simply argue "it's notable because its notable". Rusted AutoParts 02:51, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's bordering on hounding. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That would imply I'm following each and every one of these editors around on different articles to bother them. That's not the case. Rusted AutoParts 16:40, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find it fair to rebut my vote. I have the right to vote what i think. --Old Time Music Fan (talk) 23:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find it fair you think I'm discounting your vote. In the end, what I think doesn't matter. Rusted AutoParts 00:24, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, i thought you were. I just got confused.--Old Time Music Fan (talk) 16:07, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Before another similar article, or Godwin, gets mentioned again, allow me to say OSE is never a valid argument. — Wyliepedia 04:28, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources per WP:GNG. -- GreenC 05:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's current news. Doesn't make it notable. Rusted AutoParts 06:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it does. Read WP:GNG for how notability is defined. Also summarized at WP:42. The sources used in the article are "reliable". News outlets such as AP, ESPN, NYT etc. are reliable sources that count towards notability. There is nothing in GNG about "current news" whatever that means. "News" is by definition current and discarding sources for being news, or current, is unsupported in any rule. -- GreenC 06:34, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I highly doubt after years of being a subsection on another article that its removal makes it suddenly notable. As I stated above, a majority of it is a copy/paste job from info we read over at the original article. It can just as easily stay where it's at and serve the same purpose instead of wasting an entire article on such little information. Rusted AutoParts 06:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can't understand your argument. The article is 4 times longer than the section at Augusta National Golf Club, an article itself which is already too long. It's normal and encouraged to split off material and create "main article" links when things get too long. There is nothing wrong with "copy and paste" that is done all the time, though it needs to be recorded on the talk page to keep article history attribution intact see {{copied}}. A standalone article allows it to expand and develop (pictures, infoboxes, categories, lead-sections, external links etc) that a sub-section is more limited. There is no such thing as a "wasted" article, they are free and unlimited. -- GreenC 19:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Im not doubting the golf community finds it notable, I just feel its not notable enough for its own article. This article sprung up two days ago, after it served as a subsection for many years on Augusta. In my opinion, the creator made it to justify its inclusion on "Deaths in 2014". And a majority of the info comes from news sources reporting its removal, after many years of not being reported on. Just because it may be somewhat notable,,it doesn't mean a full article should be devoted to it. Readers get the same information at the subsection at Augusta. Rusted AutoParts 21:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the article has a a couple sentences about the removal, (expanded) the rest of it is about the tree and its history and the history of Eisenhower. Most of the material is out of place in an article just about a golf course. -- GreenC 22:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And BTW I don't play golf. Do you? -- GreenC 22:59, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I have trouble believing that this is even a topic for discussion. It's a tree. At the very least, remove it from the recent deaths listing. Geneb1955 08:50, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
The issue is the article itself, not the recent deaths list. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It looks fine to me. Deb (talk) 12:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How is this in any way a reason to keep? It fails alot of guidelines to remain. Rusted AutoParts 13:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When I say it looks fine, I mean that I consider it meets the criteria. Deb (talk) 12:24, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, sources indicate notability. Everyking (talk) 15:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, obviously meets WP:GNG. It is not a recent event but an object, as such WP:NOTNEWS and related guidelines do not apply. In any case the provided sources clearly explain that the tree was notable in the previous decades. --cyclopiaspeak! 17:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Made the New York Times a few times, in fact. And mentioned in tons of books [6]. Collect (talk) 17:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Its not a human or an animal. Suggest removing it from the recent deaths page. elg26 12:09, 18 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elg26 (talk • contribs)
Wikipedia has many articles about objects including trees: Category:Individual trees. -- GreenC 20:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is the article itself, not the recent deaths list. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Mention the tree in an entry for the golf course. Agreed this does not belong on the recent deaths page.192.75.88.232 (talk) 18:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is the article itself, not the recent deaths list. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The major problem here is it's only now just getting coverage. Where was it when it wasn't removed? A lot of people mentioned numerous other trees with short articles, all of which should be disposed of too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.227.54.45 (talk) 18:52, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually there are plenty of old sources, see the article of Google Books. There is a particularly long one from 1999 in the New York Times for example. -- GreenC 20:46, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notability is about the sources; multiple substantial pieces of independently-published coverage, from which a sourced article may be written. This subject meets that criteria, as clearly demonstrated by the footnotes showing in the piece. Pulling this from the "deaths" listing is a separate subject and that strikes me as quite reasonable. But the topic itself passes GNG with flying colors. Carrite (talk) 19:22, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge back to Augusta National Golf Club The amount of material here is not out of line with that of other points of interest on the course and I don't think that having to remove the tree due to damage is enough to justify a separate article. Mangoe (talk) 21:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - to Augusta National Golf Club. It's a...tree. Seriously, a few name-drops in the context of some historical events does not make a tree notable, it make sit worthy of mention in a respective article. Tarc (talk) 01:25, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge – Fails WP:NOTNEWS. "Significant sources" in this case appears to be really a case of multiple media outlets rushing like lemmings to parrot the same story on their website. Show me something from earlier than two or three days ago and I'll believe that there is significant coverage. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 02:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are 5 excellent sources from pre-2014. A full-length NYT piece, another NYT piece, USA today, Saturday Evening Post and a book. There are even more books not (yet) in the article. Also the sources directly assert notability calling it "among the most famous landmarks in golf". -- GreenC 03:05, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Books and sporadic news reports don't make this article notable. And with a majority of the keep arguments consisting of "other stuff exists" arguments, I may remind you all there's also Rae's Creek and Ike's Pond at the course, also referred to as landmarks. Where's their articles? Rusted AutoParts 03:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Books and reliable sources are exactly what makes this topic notable. -- GreenC 03:25, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ. If that was the case, the article would've been create years ago. Rusted AutoParts 03:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There were enough older sources to create an article, but no one did. It's like people, articles get created after they die, incorporating old sources plus new obituary sources. -- GreenC 03:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But those weren't created simply to justify being added to Deaths in 2014. Anyway, enough bickering, lets wait for the results. Rusted AutoParts 03:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't have to be included in Deaths in 2014. That question can be solved with an RfC if needed. This AfD should be an objective assessment of notability, not a way to solve a dispute over inclusion in Deaths in 2014. -- GreenC 04:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hear that, everyone? If it hasn't been created by now, it must be non-notable, so there's no need to create any more articles about things that existed in the past. Everyking (talk) 05:07, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's mature. Shining example of Wikipedia's finest editors. Rusted AutoParts 05:12, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats @Everyking: for completing a decade on wikipedia last week :) ...--Stemoc (talk) 05:43, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are plenty of sources in the article, and the subject passes the GNG. Many of the arguments for deletion appear to think that a tree can't be notable, but I don't see why trees would be an exemption to the GNG aside from WP:IDONTLIKEIT. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 04:18, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Its made an enemy of an American president who was in office at the time, its pine needles caused world famous golfer Tiger Woods to injure himself significantly, ruining his career, or at least hurting it badly, it affected a master's game once, and golfer Jack Nicklaus called it iconic. Based on its history, and coverage of it for various things, it clearly notable. Dream Focus 04:51, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Those are all very trivial. Rusted AutoParts 04:59, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rusted AutoParts, your zeal to smash, burn, annihilate and expurgate this article has by now surely been noted by everyone who has visited this page, and I assure you we are all very impressed. There is no need to expend any more energy in making your views on this subject known. Everyking (talk) 05:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; the sources provided by EvergreenFir seem to easily satisfy the requirements of the GNG. 28bytes (talk) 16:10, 19 February 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 February 19. —cyberbot I NotifyOnline 19:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The coverage in sources including many respectable newspapers indicates notability and so it clearly passes WP:GNG. There appears to be no reason to delete. There are plenty of trees on Wikipedia; for example the Anne Frank tree has a long-ish article and this tree seems just as notable. Suspect some WP:IDONTLIKEIT is at play here. BethNaught (talk) 20:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I added {{Not a ballot}} because over 25 votes in the first 24 hours due to the heated debate at Deaths in 2014 which is one of the most highly trafficked articles on Wikipedia with 10s of thousands of viewers a day, meaning many editors will come here with an interest in the outcome of including (nor not) this article in Deaths in 2014, rather than the merits of this articles notability alone. -- GreenC 22:34, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm generally in favor of deleting news-y event articles, but as Cyclopia notes, this isn't about an event (we can probably all agree that a Death of the Eisenhower Tree would be an absurd article). Events tend to have pretty ephemeral impact, but in this case, we're talking about a tree that made headlines throughout a 50-year or so period. While I recognize that this constitutes an WP:OSE appeal, I still can't help noting that we have articles on people less notable than this tree. It looks like at least some of the editors advocating deletion are just carrying on a dispute from the Deaths in 2014 talk page. --BDD (talk) 00:26, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable tree. When we have sources that stretch quite a few years back it's clear that this is notable. Sure, a tree on a golf course might not be the most encyclopedic topic, but we have many articles on stranger things. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 01:16, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable tree. Well documented, and apparently well loved by golfers. --DThomsen8 (talk) 02:26, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and note that I didn't know we even had a Deaths in 2014 article. NOTNEWS is a very good reason to delete an article about a subject that's only getting coverage in news stories over a short period of time, even when the subject isn't itself an event. However, when your subject gets news coverage over several decades, it's far past a not-news situation. Coverage in a print book from a major publisher is far more important yet for notability: books don't get published quickly, and they're generally the result of extensive editing (why would you do a rush-job on an entire book?), so unless we have reason to doubt this specific book's reliability, we should consider its coverage of this tree to be the rock on which the tree's notability rests. Please note that this is basically a "don't delete" vote; I suppose this could stand as a separate article, but this kind of thing is generally better covered in the golf course article, although because I'm not that familiar with the situation, I'm not going to give active support or opposition to the merger idea. Nyttend (talk) 02:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per DThomsen8, et al. And, do not merge. --71.178.50.222 (talk) 07:55, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I added it to List of trees, worth reviewing. It is a notable one, among various individual trees that have historic importance. By the way, there are a number of trees listed as California Historical Landmarks or on other historic registers. This one is not, but that doesn't mean it isn't important, because probably the owners would not choose to have it listed (and restrict their private property rights). --doncram 11:30, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Augusta National Golf Club. This tree is not notable independently of the golf club, bout would be valid in a section of that article. Rarkenin (talk) 13:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's too long to be a section without undo balance problems, and anyway the golf course article is already too long and should be broken into sub-articles. -- GreenC 22:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I see no reason to delete this page. The tree's significance may have been relatively small - at least to non-golfers - but it does involve an interesting anecdote about U.S. President. No harm in letting this page exist. Xenxax (talk) 00:20, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep as a separate article about the tree. Is the nominator the least bit familiar with WP:BEFORE? If not, they should stay away from AfD until they've read and understood it. The Eisenhower Tree is a notable American landmark in the world of golf. Viriditas (talk) 02:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge, with a strong bias towards the former. It's clearly a tree that golfers know about and would ask questions about ("What species was that tree?"... "Who was this Eisenhower character who named it?"... etc.), so it probably deserves its own article. I understand that the article has been created as the result of a recent event, but there seems to be evidence of the tree's former notability. Inevitably the tree has become more notable by its death, but this is true in other cases too. RomanSpa (talk) 19:38, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This historical tree has coverage in reliable third party sources that back up it's notability past WP:NOTNEWS. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Although most of the sources are about the death of the tree, I don't see that this disqualifies it from notability. The removal of a tree from a golf course would not be newsworthy at all if the tree were not already notable. This is why I'd favour Keep.And Introducing... A Leg (talk) 08:35, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This clearly passes our general notability guideline, I can't see a single substantive policy-based reason for deletion here. I don't really care why the page was created, be it for recent deaths or not, that's completely irrelevant. Acather96 (click here to contact me) 16:22, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 01:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doppler the Weathercat[edit]

Doppler the Weathercat (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 mascot of a small news station doesn't meet notability requirements. Rusted AutoParts 06:09, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per nom. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 15:56, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:SIGCOV. WWGB (talk) 22:29, 18 February 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 February 19. —cyberbot I NotifyOnline 19:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The station seems to have a page, so could this be merged into that article? There is some coverage of the cat, so it would probably be worth a mention on that article- especially since they actually have the cat listed on their staff page. I'm thinking that a 1-2 sentence summary in the article's history section would suffice. Something along the lines of "In 1996 the station adopted an orange tabby cat that had wandered onto the set. The cat, which was named 'Doppler The Weathercat' by station viewers, served as mascot for WSTM-TV's meteorology department until his retirement from television on September 12, 2013." That's short, to the point, and sums up everything that we particularly need to know about the feline. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:01, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a notable cat.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:03, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Someone already added Doppler T. Weathercat to the WSTM-TV news team, so that's taken care of. Like the others, I don't think this cat is notable enough for its own article. It's not my hometown, but it's still a bit weird to see local Syracuse "celebrities" brought up on Wikipedia. What's next, a famous dog in Poughkeepsie? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:10, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per NinjaRobotPirate. Fails WP:NCAT. Oh, wait...— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:05, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per NinjaRobotPirate. --AmaryllisGardener (talk) 00:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Seems like Doppler the Weathercat has produced WP:SNOW. WWGB (talk) 01:07, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete only notable in one part of the United States not notable outside that community. Dman41689 (talk) 07:34, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 22 February 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. Black Kite (talk) 16:42, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bhupendra Chaubey[edit]

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

Article is clear WP:SPAM. The creator and sole significant contributor appears to be a WP:SPA. Sources appear to be promotional. Article was previously deleted via PROD but restored at creator's request. Ad Orientem (talk) 17:42, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete A minor television journalist, not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:21, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, National Affairs Editor at one of the biggest news networks in the second most-populous country in the world. [7] confirms him as 'Chief Political Correspondent' of CNN-IBN. The promotional wordings can easily be removed and rewritten, without deletion. --Soman (talk) 05:47, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, appears in notable programmes on a notable network, that is true. But that's also not itself grounds for meeting the WP:GNG. We need sources about the subject of the article that are both substantial and independent, and none of the references provided here are both. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:09, 2 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. WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 18:41, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of largest shopping malls in the Philippines[edit]

List of largest shopping malls in the Philippines (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, we do not need a list of the largest shopping malls in the Philippines or anywhere for that matter. This list attracts spammers like shit attract flies. Most of the information is geared to what stores they have and more advertisement than an unencyclopedic list. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:31, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No I think Bush is a notable jackass, a list of shopping malls is not. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:09, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - For all the reasons already given and in particular agree "the nomination is rather subjective". VMS Mosaic (talk) 01:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - no valid reason given. I have long-term-semi-protected the article. Bearian (talk) 19:35, 21 February 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:11, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2013–14 Tercera División[edit]

2013–14 Tercera División (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)

At this AfD the article for the 2011–12 season of Tercera División the was deleted as a non-professional football competition failing WP:NSEASONS and WP:NOTSTATS. The same rationale applies for the following seasons of the same league, where no attempt at prose has been made in any case. C679 15:47, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

35 related articles under the same criteria:

2012–13 Tercera División (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2010–11 Tercera División (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2009–10 Tercera División (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2008–09 Tercera División (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2007–08 Tercera División (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2006–07 Tercera División (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2005–06 Tercera División (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2004–05 Tercera División (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2003–04 Tercera División (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2002–03 Tercera División (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2001–02 Tercera División (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2000–01 Tercera División (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1999–2000 Tercera División (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1998–99 Tercera División (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1997–98 Tercera División (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1996–97 Tercera División (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1995–96 Tercera División (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1994–95 Tercera División (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1993–94 Tercera División (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1992–93 Tercera División (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1991–92 Tercera División (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1990–91 Tercera División (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1989–90 Tercera División (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1988–89 Tercera División (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1987–88 Tercera División (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1986–87 Tercera División (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1985–86 Tercera División (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1984–85 Tercera División (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1983–84 Tercera División (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1982–83 Tercera División (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1981–82 Tercera División (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1980–81 Tercera División (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1979–80 Tercera División (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1978–79 Tercera División (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1977–78 Tercera División (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

C679 15:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C679 15:54, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - In no way is the Tercera Division a "top league" as mandated by WP:NSEASONS. Furthermore there is essentially no sourced prose in any of these articles, a clear contravention of NOTSTATS. Looking at the various articles on the Tercera Division it looks like there are a large amount of statdump articles such as this and these which probably ought to be reviewed as well. Fenix down (talk) 16:06, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - Do it, i'm tired working for nothing Scaufape (talk) 17:47, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note the above editor has contributed greatly to the article, and this vote appears to be sarcastic frustration, more so than a belief it should be deleted. Paradoxically, the editor has continued to improve the article since making this comment. Nfitz (talk) 02:20, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that the edits from the author since the AfD nomination have only updated the unsourced statistics. It would be misleading to suggest this has resulted in an improvement to the article. C679 20:37, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per WP:NSEASONS. Note to nominator, please try and bundle in more bite-size chunks in future ;) GiantSnowman 18:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – sorry about the large chunk, the cut-off isn't arbitrary though, it's the whole era of it being the fourth level. One was already deleted, to set precedent, so I figured it is simplest just to do them all together, since the same criteria apply in uniform manner. CHOMP. C679 22:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain all - you are destroying a key building block of the football project. It is so very sad. I see little point to contributing to a project that destroys such good work.League Octopus 09:55, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree it's a shame to lose information in such a way, but editors need to realise that there is a threshold for notability. Whether that threshold is in the right place at the moment is a discussion for another time, but as I see it right now, these articles fall below it. The football WikiProject has lots of things that need improving, so if editors want to work on something worthwhile, rather than just a set of articles that stand no chance of remaining in the long term, I can think of lots of pages I could point them to. – PeeJay 15:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What "good work" are you referring to? No work seems to have gone into any of these pages other than a "copy and paste job" of statistics from other pages. I am not advocating the destruction of good work, I am suggesting that fourth-tier Spanish football is not significantly notable to have 35+ subpages about seasons which are not covered by reliable sources. I would ask League Octopus whether you agree with that. "Key building blocks", as you put it, would in my opinion be significant articles such as Football in Spain, which, by the way, bears no mention to league competitions below the top flight and boasts an impressive eight words regarding competitions for women. Why editors spend time regurgitating trivial statistics instead of improving the most fundamental of articles is beyond me. C679 15:28, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - Articles fall below general standard of notability. – PeeJay 15:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the only reason this pages are being nominated are because they are Spanish. At risk of someone waving at WP:OSE we don't have objections about similar articles for the 10th level of English football (and there are many, many examples, such as 2012–13 Wessex Football League) but we object to the 4th level of Spanish soccer? Really? This reeks of WP:BIAS. Nfitz (talk) 18:43, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are remarkably quick to assume bad faith here, given how often you accuse others of doing the same. A quick look at any of the articles and a read through of the comments above would show pretty clearly that these articles have any number problems that the Wessex League article does not. Most importantly they have no sources and no prose. Which is precisely what it says in the nomination. Nationality has nothing to do with it. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:11, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We are proposing to delete details for the 4th level of Spanish football, which is very well covered in the Spanish-language version, and yet we keep the 10th level of English football? Not only am I assuming bad faith. IT IS bad faith. It's a vile, disgusting, violation of WP:BIAS. It's sad to see such prejudice. If one is troubled, expand the articles. Much of the argument doesn't seem to be that the articles are lacking, but that they shouldn't be here in the first place. Nfitz (talk) 18:04, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Very well covered", as you put it, actually being "full of statistics and generally unreferenced prose". Spanish Wikipedia having more lax notability rules is not a reason to keep articles on English Wikipedia, when there is a uniform absence of referenced prose. As for the 10th tier of English football, I imagine that is not covered by reliable sources either on a season-by-season basis, but that matter is for elsewhere. C679 13:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Very well covered, as in this article is covered by 20 separate articles there. Still, do you really think that it would be difficult to establish notability for the 4th level of Spanish soccer, if the article was improved, rather than deleted? Nfitz (talk) 02:22, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Quality ≠ quantity. 20 separate articles which are unsourced and statsdumps. Not "very well covered" at all. The point is, that the articles here at en.wiki do not meet GNG and nobody, even you, is suggesting that they do. So there seems to be an absence of rationale to "keep". C679 20:40, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That comment makes it look like you believe it is the article that needs to pass WP:GNG to be notable - it is the topic that needs significant coverage in reliable sources to be notable. The current state of an article is unrelated to notability. Mentoz (talk) 21:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Semantics, Mentoz86; topics are subject to coverage, not articles. Articles about topics which have not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources may fail GNG. State of the article is somewhat connected to notability, as many articles do show they meet notability requirements by having reliable sources verify their content. Thanks for the opportunity for clarification, though. C679 21:55, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The proposed deletions are unsound and unfair in terms of the potential to expand the articles. If we take one just year say 2012–13 Tercera División it could be expanded into a very detailed article using regional web and newspaper articles. Just take a look at the Spanish pages:
+ Numerous regional newspaper & web articles
+ General stats sites
League Octopus 10:44, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • They could be expanded. However, having looked at a couple of the articles I can see very little prose supported by references apart from coverage from winning the league at the Galicia section, which of course is possible to list (or write about) at the page for the league. General stats sites belong in the external links. I hope you're not suggesting a format similar to the Spanish one, where there is an abundance of statistical information and barely any referenced prose. Per WP:NOTSTATS, "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. Wikipedia articles should not be: […] Excessive listings of statistics."C679 13:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very very serious issue for the project. You all do brilliant admin work for the project but the removal of fourth tier league tables from the "World & European champions" country is a step too far. You are playing with WP terminology (you know far more about it than me) but if you want people like me to stay in the project you will call a halt to this form of "mass deletion" nonsense. The choice is yours. I could provide a great single page for 2012–13 Tercera División that would tick all the boxes but I have resolved to give the project one last chance (after a years absence) and give superb coverage to an African country - Uganda (currently halted). League Octopus 14:35, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So by your argument, (ignoring the point that notability rules are not uniform across Wikis so highlighting what is on the Spanish WP is not relevant), we should keep the pages until Spain are no longer world and European champions? I also note, looking at the Spanish articles that these seem to suffer from exactly the same problem being discussed here, namely a wealth of stats and a dearth of sourced prose. Only this article has anything like a significant amount of prose, but it is all unsourced, so I am not sure what point you are trying to make, there is little indication that there is substantial reliable discussion of each of these groups in Spanish language sources from your comments above bar the usual routine stat sites. Furthermore, how would you address the points raised above that season articles are only required for "top leagues" as per WP:NSEASONS. I know this is particularly vague, but it stands to reason that a tier on any countries league pyramid where the divisions are split by region is not a "top league". Fenix down (talk) 11:16, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NSEASONS covers "sports team seasons" not leagues. The issue demonstrates that this deletion process is fundamentally flawed with NSEASONS being promoted as a main reason for deletion when clearly NSEASONS does not make any reference to "league seasons". A reasonable action would have been to put the articles forward for improvement rather than culling. 15:46, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Your comments here are beginning to get quite personal, you may wish to consider reviewing them. Aside from any issues with NSEASONS, which AfD precendent shows has been used for league seasons as well as club seasons, since it is merely WP:COMMONSENSE to replace the word "teams" with "leagues" in the phrase Team season articles should consist mainly of well-sourced prose, not just statistics and lists of players, there are still fundamental NOTSTATS and GNG issues in this raft of statdump articles that rely almost wholly on statistical websites for there sourcing. So far you have not been able to provide any real evidence that these articles pass GNG and the reasons for this is that beyond statistical sites and routine match reporting, there simply is not the level of substantial reliable sources out there to generate the degree of sourced prose that these articles require. Fenix down (talk) 14:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Tercera División articles should be the limit of season articles in Spanish football. This is a national league (it appears at the Spanish Federation website and teams can qualify to Copa del Rey) and every week appears in all the Spanish sports newspapers (Marca, As, Sport and Mundo Deportivo). It would be a shame to delete all of them. Is Spanish Tercera less important than Segona Divisió of Andorra, a country without professional teams e.g.? Gonzaka (talk) 22:19, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why should they be the limit, what guidelines exist to support this view. The fact that the league is at a level from which teams can qualify for the Copa del Rey would indicate that the league and teams are inherently notable for their own articles, which no one is debating here, but that is not an inclusion criteria currently mandated by NSEASONS. I would however, agree with you and Nfitz above, that there are a number of leagues which currently have season articles where NSEASONS would indicate they are not sufficiently notable and perhaps these should / will be discussed in due course. However, as always, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is never an acceptable AfD argument. Fenix down (talk) 11:16, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the quality of an article is never a good reason to delete. A dedicated Spanish-talking editor would probably have small problems with demonstrating notability on these articles - afterall it is the fourth tier of of Spanish football. It wont help the systematic bias in Wikipedia to delete these articles, and I'd like to encourage the editors that dislike season-articles failing WP:NOTSTATS to go nominate some of the tenth-tier season-articles listed in this template for deletion instead. Mentoz (talk) 20:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revamp offer - I assume that if the deletion of these articles is successful the next move will be to delete the remaining Tercera División articles - refer here. This will of course involve the removal of many third tier league articles from Spanish football. One thing that is clear is that all of the articles are poorly presented and I am willing to standardise and improve them if the proposer is willing to withdraw the current proposed deletions. I will also ensure that one article is up to GNG standard and this should act as a signpost for Spanish-speaking editors by indicating the sort of standard that we seek. I make this offer on condition that 2011–12 Tercera División is restored. League Octopus 08:40, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Procedurally, AfD nominations may not be withdrawn when votes for delete are present. Of course, if any specific article meets the general notability guideline, there is a strong case to keep it. C679 20:33, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - In my view there is real potential to WP:MERGE the Tercera División league table pages with the Tercera División play off pages e.g. 2010–11 Tercera División can be merged with 2011 Tercera División play-offs. The play-offs should make it much easier for Spanish-speaking editors to address notability.
Play-off pages have been created for:
and info can be added for the play-offs covering the other years.League Octopus 09:16, 27 February 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) 17:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Triangle of Life[edit]

The Triangle of Life (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)

Entirely unreferenced article with dubious notability and verifiability. Various "triangles of life" can be found on the internet (including this one), but I haven't found a reference that confers credibility and notability on this article.

I previously PROD'd this page, but the author undid that. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:45, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete as unencyclopedic burbling. Mangoe (talk) 16:12, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see any evidence on Google/Google Scholar that this is anything more than an original essay, though some hits did look like they could possibly be relevant. I suggest that it be deleted, and if it's truly a notable theory, it can be recreated with better sourcing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:34, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 19:18, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do You Want Me Or Not?[edit]

Do You Want Me Or Not? (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 notable. Lacks reviews, charting, gold. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Substantially concur with nom. I had previously put a PROD on the article but it was removed without improvement. There is nothing here that rings that notability bell. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:01, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The answer is no, because the song is uncharted, self-released and like most unnnotable songs doesn't have any critical reaction. Nate • (chatter) 22:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence of notability, as already mentioned. Around 40 Google hits, none of which look reliable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:50, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 22 February 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:31, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Italian geniuses[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of Italian geniuses (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)

Too subjective, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of geniuses. Launchballer 11:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the last AfD was closed as 'no consensus'. Granted, this was a much higher quality than List of geniuses but I take the view that you can't polish a turd. Also WP:NOTDIR.--Launchballer 11:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I worked hard on this wikipedia page. A precise and meticulous work. --CultureEurope (talk) 12:38, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a policy-based argument?--Launchballer 12:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No argument or defense by CultureEurope is necessary, he has already spelled-out his policy arguments in the 3 week, 2500-word AfD that was closed 96 hours ago; to demand he retype them all is borderline harassment. The very existence of this AfD is now the subject of discussion, not the article. BlueSalix (talk) 13:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The names listed in the wikipedia page were taken from two sources:
Cox IQ [8] is one of the 301 IQs assigned by American psychologist Catherine Cox of the three-hundred greatest geniuses that lived between 1450 and 1850, as published in her famous 1926 book Early Mental Traits of Three Hundred Geniuses.
Buzan IQ [9] is an IQ assigned by Englishmen accelerated learning expert Tony Buzan and grand chess master and literature scholar Raymond Keene, as found in their 2005 Book of Mental World Records, in which they attempt to rank the hundred greatest geniuses of all-time using an eight category, 835-point, scoring methodology, assigning IQs to each genius along the way. Goodbye... --CultureEurope (talk) 15:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep and request WP:SNOWBALL close of this AfD - the original nomination was closed less than 96 hours ago following a 3 week discussion involving 14 editors in which not only a consensus supporting delete failed but even a simply majority couldn't be achieved. This immediate relisting is absolutely not in the spirit of WP:RELIST and has the effect, whether intended or not, of stifling contributions by the creating editor by harassing him with red tape and bureaucracy. (For the record, I was notified by the article creator of this AfD as a courtesy due to the fact I participated in the AfD that closed just 4 days ago, and not as a canvassing action.) It is clearly not acceptable to continuously relist an article day after day in the hope of eventually getting the right mix of editors that a delete consensus can be achieved. This is doubly disturbing as the article's original author, though extremely eloquent, is most likely not a native English speaker and these continuous relistings may have the effect of chasing him away from the English WP by process of sheer exhaustion. As a non English speaker myself, I am concerned with the use of English as a cudgel. BlueSalix (talk) 13:08, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I didn't see the previous nomination until I'd filed this one. I use WP:TWINKLE to AfD articles. Hence why I didn't mention it in my initial rationale. --Launchballer 21:23, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Can you withdraw your nomination then and I'll make a non-admin close? BlueSalix (talk) 23:21, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'm happy to. How would one go about doing that?--Launchballer 23:49, 19 February 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.  Sandstein  08:10, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 748 Air Services HS 748 crash[edit]

2014 748 Air Services HS 748 crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article was created by blocked user and is of questionable notability

  • Delete - This article was created by a blocked user who is a sock puppet of Ryan kirkpatrick, who is banned from the Wikipedia community and has no place editing or creating articles. Additionally, the article fails to meet WP:GNG Dfadden (talk) 11:38, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article meets WP:GNG with significant coverage from multiple major sources independent of the subject (non-European/American does not preclude a source from being major or reliable), and additionally meets WP:AIRCRASH: the HS748 is not light, with MTOW 21092kg, and there was one fatality. Though perhaps we need to re-create the article and merge this content, if the community feels some need to wash off the banned user's influence. (Incidentally, if banned users are faster than others at creating articles about emerging significant events, such a policy structure would mean these users can cause trouble at our expense based on just our own rules - which seems irrational and unnecessary, WP:IAR) Leondz (talk) 12:07, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - WP:AIRCRASH does not automatically imply an accident warrants a stand alone article just because the aircraft is above a given MTOW and involved loss of life. Likewise WP:GNG cannot be established based on newspaper articles alone - with the exception of the Aviation Herald, the sources are tabloid and web news articles reporting the same limited facts. The accident is notable enough for perhaps a mention in airport or aircraft type article, but there is little to justify a full article. Dfadden (talk) 12:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cf. "web news articles" Don't most news articles cited these days point to web sources? I don't suppose many en.wp users have access to the print versions, nor would the references be useful to readers when compared with web links. The point is, choice of media is not an intrinsic detractor of source quality. Leondz (talk) 12:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If this article is suspected as being created by a banned user then it should be sent to speedy deletion under WP:G5. There is no need for a full AfD debate here. - Ahunt (talk) 12:47, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now has substantial edits by others, unfortunately Leondz (talk) 12:54, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep first and deadliest plane crash in the country, substantial edits by other users and meets WP:AIRCRASH requirements. 144.85.160.206 talk 13:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Seems to fulfil WP:AIRCRASH criteria (see user Leondz's comment above). Substantial edits by non-problematic users means that WP:G5 does not apply (see user 144.85.160.206 comment above). Even if there was a conflict of rules, keeping the article would be common sense (see Leondz's comment, WP:BURO, WP:COMMON). Finnusertop (talk 5:57, 19 Februay 2014 (UTC)
  • Merge to 2014 in aviation over redirect. One fatality during an irregular cargo flight and no hull loss (at least according to the article). Btw, when on December 26 last year an Antonov An-12 cargo aircraft crashed, killing all nine people aboard, I was thinking about the relevant article, but changed my mind too (but the grief is understandable anyway). Brandmeistertalk 16:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Great example for contrast. Minor correction: this HS748 crash did result in hull loss (updated). Subjectively the An-12 incident mentioned seems worse, though it was not widely reported in English, and I don't think it satisfied WP:GNG as a result. It's worth adding that old Russian airplanes crashing in Russia are not very notable - I think the historical context here adds to its notability, but they are very similar crashes from some perspectives. Leondz (talk) 17:00, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, Aviation Herald confirms hull loss, I'll wait a bit. Brandmeistertalk 21:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:22, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:22, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:22, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - on balance, this should be kept as it is the first commercial aviation accident in South Sudan. I realise that it was created in violation of WP:CBAN, but unless we WP:IAR re attribution, deleting and recreating minus the history is not going to be an option. An alternative would be for an editor in good standing to create their own version in a sandbox, at which point this article can be deleted and the new article moved in its place. Mjroots (talk) 19:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete concur with Dfadden. Not notable, unscheduled cargo flight, only the crew involved. Not sure about the sockpuppet, if it was kirkpatrick it would be obvious from the initial posted version. From what I can see it was probably written by a non native english speaker (south sudanese?), and definitely NOT Kirkpatrick !!--Petebutt (talk) 21:02, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Article history log shows page created by User:BWYM, a confirmed kirkpatrick sock. Most other significant edits seem to be by Leondz, in good faith (despite our differences of opinion on notability) who argues against speedy deletion G5 because it has been "unfortunately" expanded by others who did not detect the sock.
  • I wish I had known this before I had marked the page as patrolled and added a category for this. Mea culpa. Delete this article as being created by a banned user, and then someone else can start it again if we really need it. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 22:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Article history log shows page created by User:BWYM, a confirmed kirkpatrick sock. Most other significant edits seem to be by Leondz, in good faith (despite our differences of opinion on notability) who argues against speedy deletion G5 because it has been "unfortunately" expanded by others who did not detect the sock.
  • Delete a G5 Speedy is arguably still valid because nobody else actually added any fresh info - they were just tweaking what was already there - until the snippet about it being a hull loss was added after the AfD was opened. Leaving that aside, the keep !votes are based on the widely-discredited AIRCRASH, a quite-small flurry of news reports that has already died down (and reporting that something has happened does equate to significant coverage), and it being the first and deadliest accident in South Sudan, with one person killed. Being first doesn't make it notable and strictly speaking it isn't the first, as there was the accidental shooting-down of a helicopter in 2012. The accident is already mentioned in the type article and this article doesn't add any understanding of the event over and above what is mentioned there - a stand-alone article isn't warranted, no matter who created it. YSSYguy (talk) 22:45, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:N. This is just a news story. FonEengIneeR7 talk 09:52, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:EVENT. Cargo plane crashes are very common and there is nothing notable about this one....William 22:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS as there is no likely lasting impact on regulation or procedures.--Charles (talk) 10:50, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 22 February 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 13:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Risdall Advertising Agency[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Risdall Advertising Agency (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 nominated this at AfD back in July, saying "Regional advertising agency. No apparent importance". It was defended by the article creator as "One of the larger agencies in the Twin Cities market with clients across the country and internationally. Also the same size as Martin Williams Advertising and Campbell Mithun" As nobody else commented even after 2 relistings, it was closed (properly) as non-consensus.

The reply to the reasons for keeping is, of course, that there are many other advertising agencies whose articles should be deleted. , and that "one of the larger" is not the same thing as "notability. I would now at promotionalism as an additional reason: a list of a firm's clients is not approptiate contents, but advertising.

DGG ( talk ) 08:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 08:31, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • A Clio award carries a fair bit of prestige, doesn't it? Whether the same is true of the Clio Healthcare awards (inaugurated in 2009), I don't know. One of the citations says this agency won two of the latter. —rybec 11:00, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments A lot of the content is sourced to some bloke called Risdall. Among what isn't, I particularly like this bit: Risdall becomes the first advertising agency in the world to be organically listed on Google for the search term "advertising agency." The source for this inscrutable statement actually says: Of more than 180,000 firms worldwide, RAA is the first organically listed on a Google search for the term "Advertising agency." (When you Google something, two lists of results come up: The paid list of relevant ads, and the organic — or, unpaid — list of actual search results.) I'll attempt a translation into English: When I search in Google for the term "Advertising agency", at the top of the list of hits is RAA. The writer posted it at MinnPost (of Minneapolis). I'll wildly guess that his Googling showed a preoccupation with Minn. Possibly his IP number identified him as being in Minn. Well, he did write this back in 2008, when the Google "bubble" wasn't as well known then as it is now. -- Hoary (talk) 11:12, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reference to search results was deleted. Client list helps indicate the agency's regional/national prominence.--Jansenminneapolis (talk) 15:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC) SpeedyDelete Every edit seems to be traced back to Jansenminneapolis, seems suspicious.[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:31, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:31, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:31, 30 January 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(talk) 12:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, apart from being spammy, there's not much to indicate that they meet WP:CORP. They're probably very good at what they do, but there's a big leap from "competent" to "notable". Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:54, 18 February 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, The Bushranger One ping only 09:46, 19 February 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 13:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nutritional Rehabilitation Center, Nepal[edit]

Nutritional Rehabilitation Center, Nepal (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)

an extremely worthy but extremely small project ,of no encyclopedic significance. DGG ( talk ) 04:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:15, 30 January 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(talk) 12:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:19, 11 February 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, The Bushranger One ping only 09:41, 19 February 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) 01:55, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

White Writing: On the Culture of Letters in South Africa[edit]

White Writing: On the Culture of Letters in South Africa (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 author is a Nobelist, and any substantial work of his is notable. Even some or many individual essays might be. I do not think we should necessarily extend it to collections of essays, unless they've been as a collection the subject of critical comment that discusses the collection as such. I think that's going to be very rare, tho it can happen. DGG ( talk ) 04:51, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:13, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:13, 30 January 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(talk) 13:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • We know the author and his work are notable. So the real question is whether this should be covered in a stand-alone article or merged into a broader article on the author's work. So Keep and determine whether merging or leaving it independent is a better choice. Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:14, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the fact that it's by Coetzee might possibly mean that this meets criteria #5 of WP:BK. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:51, 18 February 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, The Bushranger One ping only 09:40, 19 February 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. SmartSE (talk) 22:03, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Featherly[edit]

Susan Featherly (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:NPEOPLE and WP:GNG. Most of the movies she acted in are non-notable, selected few she has only minor roles, has no awards or recognition to indicate any claim for notability. Currently contains only one source, which I couldn't verify what it exactly supports. IMDB profile indicates a small time actress. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 13:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 11 February 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, The Bushranger One ping only 09:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Had minor roles, like appearing in one episde in a TV show. She is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:16, 22 February 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 13:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Taylor (author)[edit]

Greg Taylor (author) (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)

Notablity not establish. Could not find source. Beerest 2 talk 13:32, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Some impressive career accomplishments, but I'm not finding substantial coverage in reliable independents sources. I think it's too soon. Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've added sources. Per WP:AUTHOR #3 multiple book reviews. The author has a significant number of book reviews. While they are trade reviews, they are still reliable sources, and the sheer number of them is unusual across a long period of time, for all of the author's books. -- GreenC 03:39, 18 February 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, The Bushranger One ping only 09:28, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All his books have multiple reviews; individually most reviews are short but they add up. There are rumors of a film of Killer Pizza but that can't count for notability unless the film becomes notable; but even without that, it passes. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:40, 19 February 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. MER-C 12:32, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Metropolitan School of the Arts[edit]

Metropolitan School of the Arts (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 organization. Speedy deletion declined on the basis that this organization uses the word "school" in its name and thus automatically avoids WP:CSD#A7 deletion. I would argue that the A7 exclusion only applies to actual schools (public and private primary, secondary, and college-level institutions), and not private dance, music or arts schools such as this one, but the speedy was declined so here we are. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 11 February 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, The Bushranger One ping only 09:25, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete private academies that do not offer formal degrees and diplomas are not inherently notable. This one does not demonstrate third party sources to meet WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 11:11, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, wouldn't appear to meet WP:CORP. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:53, 28 February 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) 05:06, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

308 East Green Street[edit]

308 East Green Street (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)

Extremely local significance. A dispute over liquor use in the vicinity of one particular eating establishment near the Univ. of Illinois, Champaign. Nobody not connected with the university would conceivably be interested. Nor are there any such sources. 'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 20:06, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no claim of notability here and of local interest at best. RadioFan (talk) 03:16, 12 February 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, The Bushranger One ping only 09:06, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- no credible assertion of notability as all the sources are extremely WP:RUNOFTHEMILL stuff. Reyk YO! 04:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete, the sources provided, while they do come from what appear to be reputable sources, are pretty much just routine coverage. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:58, 28 February 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 13:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

309 Green[edit]

309 Green (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)

Planned building of only local significance near the University of Illinois. The refs are either local to the town and the college, or mere notices. I don;t think it would be notable even if it were in existence, but so far it is only planned. While planned buildings can be notable, the bar should be set very much higher. 'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 20:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete This actually has been built (it's a bit confusing because of all the other buildings it talks about at the end that haven't been built) but in the end it's just a dorm of strictly local interest. Mangoe (talk) 21:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Structure has been complete and occupied since 2008. There is only one planned counterpart mentioned...311 E Green. I agree with statement that majority of references are indeed local...either News Gazette or The Daily Illini, however Business Wire is also a reference. Moreover, building has an entry on Wikimedia Commons and is also pictured in several commons images. Cubbie15fan (talk) 21:32, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteUnremarkable building, can find no significant coverage.TheLongTone (talk) 11:22, 11 February 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, The Bushranger One ping only 09:05, 19 February 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 List of halls of residence at the University of Reading.

There was clear consensus that this building has no individual notability, but residence halls in aggregate do, so moving this to List of halls of residence at the University of Reading makes sense. Unfortunately, @Des Titres: already went ahead and created that article during the run of this AfD, which complicates things. Instead of a simple move, somebody now has to do a merge. I think that was pushing the limits of WP:BOLD, but here we are.

It was also mentioned that Wantage_Hall should be merged as well. My gut feeling is that's the right thing to do, but that's out of scope for this AfD so no official opinion on that one.

-- RoySmith (talk) 03:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

St Patrick's Hall[edit]

St Patrick's Hall (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:BOLD redirect reverted without a proper explanation by a brand-new account. This is a Halls of Residence, with no notability independent of the University of Reading, and as such, there's nothing worth merging. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've retracted my remarks as the other editor keeps changing his comments after I have replied to them showing them to be wrong, making my comments then appear stupid. Des Titres (talk) 22:39, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, Des Trites, I've made it very clear as to why I've made my changes. (Also, sorry for being quite abrupt, these constant database server drop-outs, and my own internet issues, are really annoying me when I try to make a post/edit) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:41, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah. My old hall of residence. Still not notable though. Redirect to the university.--Charles (talk) 22:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Not notable enough for its own article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:48, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it as it is. It can be developed. Des Titres (talk) 21:02, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not the issue. The issue is whether it's notable. Individual halls of residence have generally been held not to be unless they have historic building status. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional keep - at over 100 years old, this could be historic. Has it been awarded any special listing or status? Bearian (talk) 18:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • You must live in the USA if you think somewhere 100 years old is historic. Some of the Oxford and Cambridge colleges go back to the 1200s or earlier. I doubt this is the oldest residence at Reading.--Charles (talk) 18:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article itself says it is the second oldest, and as far as I'm aware, it hasn't got any kind of listing. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:43, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Charles, I am from USA. It must be showing. Bearian (talk) 18:45, 18 February 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, The Bushranger One ping only 09:04, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only reason it is included in the template is because it has an article; there is nothing particularly special about St. Pat's whatsoever, other than that it's a catered hall, as opposed to self catered (I'm at this University, so I would know if there was!) Wantage Hall does classify as "historic", although I wouldn't say that is particularly notable either (hence why I initially redirected that one), and turning this into a "list of halls of residence" article is pointless; just create that article, rather than having the irrelvant history from this one in there. In short, I'm not sure why you voted keep when most of your !vote is a proposal for a new, separate article, and the other bit shows a lack of fact-checking. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:38, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So you, User:Lukeno94, proposed it for deletion without disclosing that you were also a student at the same university. Are you in a rival hall? Des Titres (talk) 20:59, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rival hall"? That's one of the most ludicrous comments ever. I have disclosed that I am a student at the University on multiple occasions, and I'm not so lame as to buy into the whole "one hall is better than another" type thing. And you can go away if you want to demand that I disclose my exact hall, because that is private information that you would have no business knowing. I'm beginning to wonder if you're a trolling-only account. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well you would say all that. You still proposed it for deletion without disclosing that you were a student at the same university, in a different hall. Des Titres (talk) 22:25, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bullshit. I've disclosed on multiple occasions that I'm a student at the University, and you don't have a clue whether I'm in St. Pats or not. You really are a trolling-only account, aren't you? I seem to attract those... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:40, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see why you chose to criticize my comment, when most of what you say is off-base.  ;) I said I would "guess" the two are most important, without assertion of fact-checking, and you confirm that Wantage is the most historic. And, it would be better to move and rename this article to be a list, keeping edit history and expanding, than to delete and restart a separate article. The edit history is not irrelevant, it is part of our duty to credit/honor contributions, and there would naturally be a section on St. Patrick's Hall. That seems pretty obviously acceptable, so deletion is not necessary. However, this article could simply be kept as is, leaving creation of a list-article to later. --doncram 16:05, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is our duty to credit contributions, yes, but only when they're relevant; if this article's focus was completely changed, then yes, it would be irrelevant and unnecessary to clutter up the edit history with this article's history. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have hesitated to comment here because I have a minor conflict of interest as I was a member of St Pats Senior Common Room for one term in 1963. First on the section immediately above, we do not worry about cluttering up the edit history, and we certainly should redirect if the list of Halls has any content whatsoever about each Hall and particularly St Patrick's. Second, and much more importantly, I am inclined to think that notability could be demonstrated although living in Australia I am not in a position to do so. St Patrick's has played a major role in both the university and the city. I suspect there are a host of mentions of the hall in the press, particularly from the first 30 years of the life of the Hall. Internet sources are not the only thing to look for. Has anyone looked in the University Library, or the City Library or consulted with local historians of Reading? So a weak keep for now. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't doubt there's some level of local coverage, but that isn't going to be enough to establish notability. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because there's no national coverage, which is what I did look for. Local coverage is not enough to generate notability, particularly not as it is almost always going to be in the context of the University anyway. Jeez... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Where did you look - old newspapers in the library, or what? Des Titres (talk) 22:28, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to University of Reading. I think a list article on all the residential colleges collectively might be a good thing to have and would be a better redirect target, but we don't have that, so to the university article we must go. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:04, 28 February 2014 (UTC). Struck per changes by User:doncram below. Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See below: i edited the article to become the missing/needed list. --doncram 16:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- We appear to have an article on Wantage Hall, another hall of residence. Why delete (or redirect) one not both? My reaction is that we should probably redirect BOTH to the university. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wantage Hall appears to be a listed building, which appears to convey some notability. St Pat's does not have the same status. I did initially redirect both, only to be reverted by the brand-new account that has been making wild accusations in this AfD, and someone else had stated that they thought Wantage was notable, hence why I didn't AfD that one. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have boldly edited the article this diff to make it into a "List of residence halls at Reading University". The edit could be reverted. I think the sense here, and policy, is that such a list-article can exist, and obviously it can have an item/section on St. Patrick's Hall. I suggest closing this AFD with decision to "Keep" but to convert and move the article to List of residence halls at Reading University. There is a category Category:Lists of university and college buildings including other such lists in several countries, and a subcategory of lists of residence halls is warranted by now. I would simply move it myself, but I think a move is not necessarily easily reverted, and this AFD is still open. --doncram 16:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bravo. I think this is fine, just rename the article once the AFD is done and we should be finished here. Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • Rename to List of halls of residence at the University of Reading following Doncram's edits. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:25, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Both are valid articles, indeed I've already created List of halls of residence at the University of Reading too. Des Titres (talk) 17:37, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Argh, the new List of halls of residence at the University of Reading is a copy-paste from the St. Patrick's Hall article edited by me to be ready to be moved, and which has been reverted to being just about St. Patrick's. GFDL proper crediting matters. However this AFD closes, could an administrator fix the edit history: if decision is to delete/move St. Patrick's Hall, then please move it, with its edit history, to the new List name, and merge the history. It's not a great work to be super-proud of, but the editors of St. Patrick's and my edits should be in the edit history. Copy-pastes are usually not a good idea. I understand Des Titres' point though, s/he believes both articles are separately notable. If both are kept, i kinda think my edits ought to be included in the new List article's history too. --doncram 22:12, 1 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. (non-admin closure) buffbills7701 21:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Qingjian Group[edit]

Qingjian 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)

Article fails to establish notability WP:N per WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Cited source coverage is trivial. See WP:42. PROD tag removed by creator who asserts notability based on the company's revenue on article's talk page. I don't see revenue listed as criteria for notability though and the sources remain thin at best. Am I missing something here? Ad Orientem (talk) 18:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 4 February 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:38, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I created this article. While the operative term for the inclusion criteria is notability, I believe the aim of the guidelines is to at the very least include major companies. I pointed out the annual turnover of Qingjian is in the billions of US dollars. That's equivalent in size to a Fortune 500 company. Pausing for one second and thinking common sense, no matter how zealously you wish to delete, how would it be agreeable to other contributors that a company of this size is promptly deleted? Greatvictor999 (talk) 10:24, 10 February 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, The Bushranger One ping only 08:53, 19 February 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, with a distinct possibility of a page move to rename the article. (Non-administrator closure.) NorthAmerica1000 11:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Segar[edit]

Marc Segar (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 NN, Wikipedia is not a memorial Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 17:12, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I don't see anything worthwhile on Google, but Google Books has many hits. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 3 February 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:40, 9 February 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, The Bushranger One ping only 08:52, 19 February 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) buffbills7701 21:51, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tooban[edit]

Tooban (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 not established for almost 6 years. Puffin Let's talk! 14:54, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not a notable place, appears to just a small townland. Snappy (talk) 18:12, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – per WP:GEOLAND. Appears to have been a legally-recognized populated place, per:
 – Northamerica1000(talk) 15:32, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Yes its a legal place, an Irish townland, most are populated, what is notable about this one? We don't have articles for the other 61,000 townlands. Snappy (talk) 15:57, 7 February 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Yes, I linked the main townland article above. My question why is this one notable? Snappy (talk) 23:02, 9 February 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, The Bushranger One ping only 08:50, 19 February 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:04, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Killenaule GAA[edit]

Killenaule GAA (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 references, notability not established for almost 6 years. Puffin Let's talk! 14:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete. I agree that it needs more information, which I have begun to add. Pmunited (talk) 15:05, 3 February 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • ? Keep. The nominator's claim that the notability has not been established for six years is false. The club has senior championship winners' and runners-up medals. It has numerous players whose notability has long been established, including Declan Fanning and Pat Kerwick (whose achievements include being part of the 2010 Tipperary All-Ireland winning team), Donie O'Connell (whose achievements include being part of the 1989 and 1991 Tipperary All-Ireland winning teams), Tom Ryan (whose achievements include being part of the 1961 and 1962 All-Ireland winning teams) and Paul Shelly (whose achievements include an All Star in 1997). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.164.36 (talk) 21:53, 12 February 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, The Bushranger One ping only 08:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have added some references to the information to show its notability regarding representation in Tipperary teams.Fernandosmission (talk) 08:38, 26 February 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.  Sandstein  08:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Asia Nexgen[edit]

Asia Nexgen (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 general notability guideline WP:GNG or corporate notability standards WP:CORP. Agyle (talk) 05:48, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A search on Google News with the relevant keywords (Asia Nexgen recently changed its name to ANX for short) reveals that it is Hong Kong's largest bitcoin exchange and is behind a highly publicized bitcoin giveaway in that city. _dk (talk) 02:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out. I hadn't searched for ANX; ANXPRO and ANXBTC could also be worth including in searches. Articles from CNN, SCMP, MSN/Malaysia, The Hindu, and NDTV all covered the New Years Bitcoin giveaway promotion by ANX around January 28–January 30.
Financial Times, 14 January 2014 has a two–sentence quote from the company's CEO on regulations.
CoinDesk, 6 February 2014 mentions ANXPRO and ANXBTC services in passing in one sentence.
––Agyle (talk) 04:09, 10 February 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, The Bushranger One ping only 08:47, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: An article about the company opening a brick-and-mortar Bitcoin store was published today. In assessing notability, I'd caution that while several articles mention the company, many of them have very little information about the company, as with their New Year's giveaway. There is very little that can be reported right now, and many details in the article lack citations from reliable sources (e.g. the exact relationship between ANX and Asia Nexgen, currently being treated as a single entity based on inference, and claims about registration and licensing). Agyle (talk) 23:03, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At least, for the license, it can be found on the Hong Kong Hong Kong Customs and Excise Department website by searching for the license number 13-09-01268 here https://eservices.customs.gov.hk/MSOS/wsrh/001s1?searchBy=A _dk (talk) 05:13, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The database search is not a "reliable source" in Wikipedia's sense, i.e. a published source (see WP:RS, particularly regarding "published"). If results of the database search could be archived (the URL doesn't change, so a search can't be archived by archive.org), it might be considered a reliable source, although as a primary source that's less than ideal. And the database says the license is for a company named Mega Idea Holdings Limited, "trading as Asia Nexgen", while different articles variously refer to the compan names Asia Nexgen, Asia Nexgen Bitcoin Exchange, ANX, and ANXBTC. The Wikipedia article cites no reliable sources verifying that these refer to a single legal entity, that they can legally trade money under those names based on Mega Idea Holdings' MSO license, or that Mega Idea or any of the other companies are legally registered Hong Kong companies. Even the company itself doesn't seem to explicitly claim any connection between the companies; anxbtc.com lists the same MSO license number, but I found no mention of Mega Holdings or Asia Nexgen on the site. Agyle (talk) 05:45, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : I agree with Agyle. The company is not yet sufficiently notable for inclusion. Chris Arnesen 22:33, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, does not meet WP:CORP. I can't wait until this bitcoin fad is over and we can get back to arguing about bilaterial relations articles. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:07, 28 February 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:34, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Museum of Southern History[edit]

Museum of Southern History (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 museum. No independent refs. No claim of notability. Googling finds a handful of non-independent coverage but nothing independent with in depth coverage. PROD removed without improvement. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:08, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I suggest you do a Google search for it. This is a very notable museum. Controversial. In the news frequently. Just needs to e expanded. Candleabracadabra (talk) 06:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did that before nominating it for AfD. Google news gives me one hit for "Museum of Southern History", which is a 404 link. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:26, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, Google News is no longer a useful metric of notability. See Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 44#Google news archive search? and Template talk:Find sources#Google News search is completely useless. Here is one news story about this entity: "Historical accuracy is the thrust of Museum of Southern History, curators say", Florida Times-Union, August 14, 2009. Having looked through some pages of Google results, I am on the fence about whether there's enough coverage in evidence or not. --Arxiloxos (talk) 06:39, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(a) Google search and google news have never been a particularly useful metric of notability, but they're part of my good-faith test before nominating things I've never heard of before to AfD. Is there anything better that I should use instead? (b) The link above makes me think WP:FRINGE (I know very little about american history from this period). Stuartyeates (talk) 06:50, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A museum honoring the history of the Antebellum and Confederate south is controversial. The museum itself has been covered and they are often involved in issues related to controversial statues and buildings named for confederate "heros". It's a pretty interesting subject actually. Coverage here, here and here for example. Candleabracadabra (talk) 15:44, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The about.com link is junk and all the other links are jacksonville.com links, suggests local interest only, to me. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:47, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete every online hit is passing mention or promotional. Doesn't have reliable sources or evidence of notability. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In addition to the entire articles about it listed above, it's also discussed in book sources here and here, as well as for its genealogy resources (library) here. Plenty of coverage. Covered as a major attraction in Jacksonville as well as being noted in sources for the sometimes controversial diputes over SOuthern history and figures. Also covered in the Florida Encyclopedia here. Candleabracadabra (talk) 13:56, 10 February 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, The Bushranger One ping only 08:45, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Candleabracadabra, who has demonstrated that multiple, substantial, independently-published sources exist, and therefore that this topic meets GNG. Carrite (talk) 01:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- It is always difficult. To judge whether a subject is notable when the article is still only a stub. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:56, 23 February 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 13:26, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Web Reservations International[edit]

Web Reservations International (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 only evidence its the world's largest --or for anything else -- comes from their own press releases. DGG ( talk ) 02:42, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They are the world's largest company in that space. Go call any hostel on the telephone and ask them what the world's largest hostel booking company is. Whether the answer is Hostelworld, Hostelbookers, or Hostels.com they are talking about Web Reservations International. Let99 (talk) 03:52, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's definitely notable. It's also mentioned here for the purchase of a dot-com legend. Look at the sale price of the company in 2009: $458m USD. It's the single most important company in the entire Hostel industry. If you aren't in that industry then go ask anyone who is. There should also be separate pages for their main websites, since there are notable stories behind those too. Let99 (talk) 04:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't edit my comments. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:00, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't edit the comment -- just the indentation, since it didn't use standard Wikipedia indentation. When people do that and the conversation goes on, it can get confusing. Let99 (talk) 07:30, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 10 February 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, The Bushranger One ping only 08:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This page shouldn't be up for question. It's the world's largest hostel booking company and obviously deserves its own Wikipedia page. It and its acquisitions are worth over 1/2 billion USD so I think it's a notable company. Let99 (talk) 01:22, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete, I had some hope with the sources provided by User:NinjaRobotPirate, but on reflection they seem to be largely routine in nature, despite appearing in reputable publications. It doesn't matter if they're the biggest reservations company in the universe, as far as we're concerned, if it's not confirmed in an independent and reliable source we can't use it. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:37, 28 February 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:37, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kraken (digital currency exchange)[edit]

Kraken (digital currency exchange) (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 general notability guidelines WP:GNG or corporate notability WP:CORP. Agyle (talk) 07:34, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 10 February 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, The Bushranger One ping only 08:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails GNG. The Wall Street Journal cite in the footnotes does not appear to relate to this recently created pseudocurrency. Carrite (talk) 01:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, WSJ discussed Payward (I think – I viewed too many WSJ articles this month to check), which is the company that runs the Kraken service; Kraken is a digital currency exchange, not a currency (or "pseudocurrency") itself. Agyle (talk) 03:19, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Neither Kraken nor the company Payward, which created Kraken, appear to have significant coverage from independent reliable sources. --MelanieN (talk) 15:36, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A Google search turned up some independent, reliable sources. For example CoinDesk seems to focus on cryptocurrencies and covers Kraken/Payward in several articles (I skimmed 5 and the CoinDesk search page listed 27). I also found a number of articles articles on forexmagnates.com, paymentssource.com and kommersant.ru. These aren't the WSJ but I think Kraken clears the bar for significant coverage from independent, reliable sources. Kraken also seems notable because it was responsible for finding a security flaw in Namecoin BrotherE (talk) 21:08, 24 February 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 Robinson Crusoe Island#In popular culture. The Bushranger One ping only 13:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apocalypse Island[edit]

Apocalypse Island (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)

Television quasi-documentary does not meet any notability standard; no independent reliable sources discuss it more than trivially, and even trivial mentions are rare. Agyle (talk) 07:55, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. All I found was a trivial mention at Variety, and that was about the most coverage that I saw anywhere. But now I know what Robert Davi's been up to lately. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:27, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. The article originally had verifiable, reliable sources but they are now dead links. Agyle is dissatisfied because they are not verifiable currently. Perhaps article subject has become passé. Program itself is good argument for cable-cutting, but that's just me. Redirect to Robinson Crusoe Island? — Dr.Gulliver (talk) 14:37, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I checked the article history, and all I see are blogs, personal websites, and forum posts. None of these are reliable sources. See WP:RS and WP:SPS for reasons why. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 10 February 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, The Bushranger One ping only 08:15, 19 February 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-administrator closure.) NorthAmerica1000 11:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Smallworld Cable[edit]

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

Article seems to be mainly promotional. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I can see why you might come to that conclusion, especially when reading the 'products and services' section, but that part of the article can always be shortened and maybe even re-written if a change in the tone of that section is required. I don't believe this one reason is enough for the entire article to be deleted.(Rillington (talk) 14:34, 2 February 2014 (UTC))[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete None of the sources help it really pass wp:NCORP - not even the one I've just replaced with an archive.org link Neonchameleon (talk) 17:40, 3 February 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(talk) 08:13, 9 February 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, The Bushranger One ping only 08:14, 19 February 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) 01:53, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sex + Love[edit]

Sex + Love (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)

Premature article, per WP:NALBUMS. No confirmed tracklist. No confirmed release date (only a tweet by the artist, nothing by the label or any distribution channel). —Kww(talk) 19:50, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Redirect to Enrique Iglesias. I did this before but a user I keep having problems brought this article and I didn't think it was the edit war. Erick (talk) 20:58, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The track listing seems to have been confirmed by Wal-Mart. Erick (talk) 06:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The album is coming out in March, leave it up is my suggestion, if movies (example Finding Dory that is not out till 2016) that are not released until months or years later with little to no information given can keep their pages, the same should apply to albums! No track list? who cares if nots out yet, it will be soon, and all the singles have been associated with this album. Everything in this article is true anyways! No need to delete, when its just going to be added in a month with what just a track list added with everything else thats on here already? Thats just what I think, if it gets deleted it will just be put back up next month so whats the point in deleting it now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.138.180.140 (talk) 16:17, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1) Other stuff exists is not a valid reason to keep an article. 2) Upcoming albums are supposed have to the name, release, and full track listing in order to have its own article, as pointed out on Kww's link. Erick (talk) 20:01, 7 February 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(talk) 08:22, 9 February 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, The Bushranger One ping only 08:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Delete (even temporarily) - the issue is not whether it will exist or not but whether it passes WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS. The latter is going to be difficult before it is released but things can still pass WP:GNG if coverage of the subject prior to its release is substantial enough. In this case, I don't think it is yet. Given the suggested release date, that may well change very soon. But until then, this article was created WP:TOOSOON. Stalwart111 08:26, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hadn't seen instances of coverage since located by Carrite. That's enough for me to change my !vote. Stalwart111 23:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Non-Notable, Finding Dory has a lot of anticipation among other things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Russianarmy13 (talk • contribs) 19:02, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Billboard is COVERING IT, this isn't a speculative venture at this point, it is merely an article up before the official release date. Even if the album were canceled tomorrow morning, this would still be a topic which would pass GNG. Use common sense here. Carrite (talk) 01:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Carrite. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This album now has a tracklisting and release date [1] Paul237 (talk) 12:07, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The album has an official track listing and release date now.[2][3] And it's pointless to delete it now, when it will be remade in less than a month from now. Contactman7 (talk) 20:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ http://www.walmart.com/ip/35003816
  2. ^ http://www.josepvinaixa.com/blog/enrique-iglesias-love-sex-tracklist/
  3. ^ http://www.walmart.com/ip/35003816
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (Non-administrator closure.) NorthAmerica1000 11:24, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mitch Feierstein[edit]

Mitch Feierstein (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 notable. The only possible reason for any encyclopedic notability is his one book, but . a/c WorldCat is in fewer than 100 libraries. Accepted at AfC regardless, DGG ( talk ) 03:56, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 04:00, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 04:00, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 1 February 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(talk) 08:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:AUTHOR #3, multiple book reviews. I know DGG prefers WorldCat in determining notability but it's a bad way to go about it for a number of reasons, and not codified in the rules (previous debates never had consensus). WorldCat is a decent rule of thumb heuristic for a quick check but not as a final rationale for deletion. Does the author have multiple book reviews per NBOOK? Check. Let's use the rules as written (I can see why it passed AfC) - notability can be determined by critical attention not just librarian budgetary choices. -- GreenC 16:34, 15 February 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, The Bushranger One ping only 08:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Got a couple decent sources showing in the footnotes and the book itself probably has some review juice. This is a GNG pass, not necessarily a SNG-AUTHOR or SNG-BOOK pass. Carrite (talk) 01:48, 20 February 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) 01:51, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

S K Srivastava[edit]

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

Article subject lacks notability WP:N per WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. Cited sources are primary and or trivial and fail WP:RS. See WP:42. Ad Orientem (talk) 23:11, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note I had intended to post this as a PROD in order to give the article creator the opportunity to establish notability by expanding the article and sources. Unfortunately I clicked the wrong bleeping button and didn't catch it in time. If the article creator can establish notability I will happily withdraw my AfD nom. But right now I just don't think it meets our standards. Happy to hear contrary opinions. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:18, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep : He is working in height-est post of Government of Delhi and a senior IAS officer. So my view -article is justified, yes I agree information is very less about the person. GKCH (talk) 06:16, 3 February 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(talk) 11:19, 9 February 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, The Bushranger One ping only 08:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. His post would seem to me to meet the notability bar. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:26, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:26, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, clearly notable post. --Soman (talk) 20:44, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. GreenC 03:06, 24 February 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) 01:49, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don Balfour (politician)[edit]

Don Balfour (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)

All the sources I have found are about the one incident mentioned in the article. He was acquitted of all charges and reinstated to the Georgia Senate. It does not appear that there is significant coverage in reliable sources other than for this one event. GB fan 13:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. State senators are notable per WP:POLITICIAN. Undue weight upon the corruption charges is an issue for editing. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak Delete - Sorry, I got busy after I had started that discussion on the Talk page and didn't follow up. I don't know normal procedure, but I would have proposed deleting with possible stub being created. It has been substantially trimmed, but still the acquittal is majority of article. I will see if there are general references to anything outside of that case, but as it stands I would still say delete. Brinkley32 (talk) 03:14, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. State senators are notable per WP:POLITICIAN. Enos733 (talk) 22:02, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:POLITICIAN does not say that state senators are notable. WP:POLITICIAN is a subsection of Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Additional criteria. This says "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." So being a state senator does not guarantee that Balfour is notable. GB fan 01:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Reliable sources are the key to meeting WP:GNG, thus the presumption behind WP:POLITICIAN is that reliable sources exist about members of a subnational government. Most major newspapers will run biographical articles about the candidate or winner of a state legislative race. In this case, there is plenty of information that A) the subject serves in the Georgia State Senate, and was first elected in 1992 B) has an official biography on the State Senate page and C) there are multiple reports about his indictment in major papers. This subject is also recognized as the Republican majority caucus chairman in a 2003 New York Times article. [1] Enos733 (talk) 04:02, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • We agree that reliable sources are the key and that Politician assumes those sources are available. When I looked for sources all I could find are sources about the indictment and that does not meet the GNG. You have found something I did not and it is now looking better. GB fan 10:41, 5 February 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(talk) 11:30, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Went back and looked at the two sources that have been presented since I started the AFD. The one source that was added to the article did not mention Balfour at all but I found one to verify the information presented, but the information is just a list of names. The source above does mention Balfour but just presents one quote from him. The only significant coverage I have found or anyone has presented all pertains to him being indicted and acquitted. GB fan 12:47, 9 February 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, The Bushranger One ping only 08:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:Politician does say state senators are notable, it is part of the primary clause, as state legislators: 1. Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature. (bolding mine so you see the words).Dru of Id (talk) 15:28, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • And WP:Politician is a subsection of Additional Criteria and it says

People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.

A person who fails to meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability. Editors may find these criteria helpful when deciding whether to tag an article as requiring additional citations (using {{BLP sources}} for example), or to instead initiate a deletion discussion.

    • bolding as in the original. So state senators are "likely to be notable" but being a state senator "does not guarantee that a subject should be included". GB fan 15:47, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This shouldn't even be a close call. Being the subject of a controversy does not make a public figure non-notable. Concern about negative content is understandable but deleting the article is not the solution. Articles about state senators are kept routinely, and in this case the subject has been in office for decades, served as the president of the National Conference of State Legislatures [19], and is the subject of copious press coverage. (2,500 hits at AJC.com alone! [20]) Slogging through Google for news coverage can be time-consuming (GNews Archives, you are missed!) but HighBeam has coverage on him going back to 1996 [21]; he was elected chairman of the Republican caucus in 2002 [22] and later chairman of the Rules Committee [23]; in 2003 he was noted nationally for efforts on behalf of anti-abortion legislation [24]; and there's plenty more where that comes from. [25] --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:54, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I never said that being the subject of a controversy makes him non-notable. I said that the only significant coverage I was able to find was about the one event. Now that someone else has been able to find significant coverage outside of the one event, I agree the article should be kept. GB fan 16:40, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Yes, per WP:POLITICIAN, members of sub-national legislatures are notable. We always keep them all. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:28, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per Arxiloxos. The sources and WP:POLITICIAN both warrant keeping the article. - Aoidh (talk) 19:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As other contributors have pointed out WP:POLITICIAN applies here.
  1. Note, this article was first discussed at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Don Balfour (politician) BLP issues.
  2. In my opinion the concerns voiced at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Don Balfour (politician) BLP issues should have been voiced at Talk:Don Balfour (politician).
  3. Deletion of well documented articles due to editorial concerns is counter to our deletion policies. Geo Swan (talk) 00:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My question to the closing administrators is why was this AfD relisted twice? As Arxiloxos said, this is not even a close call. State legislators in the United States are notable. Enos733 (talk) 06:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep State senators are very clearly notable. This is one of the clear take-away points from the notability guidelines for politicians. Whether members of state houses are notable is a bit less clear, but state senators are notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:58, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/27/us/georgia-lawmakers-drop-rebel-cross-from-the-flag.html
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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-administrator closure.) NorthAmerica1000 11:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stephens Orr[edit]

Stephens Orr (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 enough evidence. As well as he is not notable in any way. NovaSkola (talk) 07:34, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have added 2 refs, though one is a passing mention in an obituary. He is described as "the noted portrait photographer" in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography [26] though again in an article about someone else. Appears to have died in Ayrshire in 1990. Really needs more than I am finding though. AllyD (talk) 19:06, 31 January 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(talk) 11:44, 9 February 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, The Bushranger One ping only 08:09, 19 February 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-administrator closure.) NorthAmerica1000 11:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Alden[edit]

Michael Alden (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 individual notability. Producer is an administrative function, not an artistic one. Some of these works are major, but non e of them are his in any creative sense. The referneces are to the works, and list him in the credits; they are not about him, or his role, and they do not shown importance for him. DGG ( talk ) 02:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Producer is an artistic role, and has creative input on many aspects of a production. The fact that they vet and hire the creative team, raise money, and find distribution for a film surely merits importance to the resulting production, as it would not exist without a Producer. One of the references is an article published about him and his role as producer on a variety of projects. What more is needed to avoid deletion of this entry? Kylemetzger 11 (talk) 17:52, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was intensely vetted by Wikipedia while creating the page that Wikipedia accepted on May 28, 2013 as biography of living persons. No alterations have been made to the page with the exception of the addition of a photo. Wikipedia required appropriate links to confirm the content of the page was factual. Those links were provided and the page was published. I am not sure what additional confirmations may now be needed for the biography but in response to DGG statement that Producer is an administrative function, not an artistic one the none of the projects are mine in any creative sense is inaccurate, however, as descriptive commentary was not allowed, I relied on the Wikipedia definition of a Producer. What is the basis for claiming no individual notability as a reason for deletion in this instance? And what is the definition of notability as it would relate to a requirement for continued inclusion in the publication? Thank you Mdjared (talk) 14:28, 4 February 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(talk) 11:56, 9 February 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, The Bushranger One ping only 08:08, 19 February 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. Black Kite (talk) 16:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre-Marie Robitaille[edit]

Pierre-Marie Robitaille (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)

Seems to fail WP:BIO for WP:ONEEVENT reasons. jps (talk) 13:36, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doing a bit a research with this tool found that this article wasn't an orphan at one time, as it was actually linked to List of Big Bang Cosmology Dissidents. That article is also nominated for deletion. Aerospeed (Talk) 15:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Concur with nom. Small amount of coverage for only a single event. Not notable. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:05, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject does have a slight amount of notability due to the full page ad in the NYT and the follow-up article, but on the other hand, it didn't get coverage anywhere else, and I don't think we need a Wikipedia article on every "man bites dog" story that appears in the NYT, let alone every kooky paid advertisement. Also, I think this article was created specifically to generate notability so the guy could be added to the "List of Big Bang Dissidents", which is another problematic article. This technique of manufacturing mutually referential articles promoting fringe POVs is not consistent with Wikipedia policy.Urgent01 (talk) 18:35, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Formerly Director of Magnetic Resonance Imaging Research for the Department of Medicine of Ohio State University from 1989-2000. If this isn't notable I don't know what is. Reasons for deletion are dis-functional. Wavyinfinity (talk) 00:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. GS h-index of 17 passes WP:Prof#C1 for his mainstream work. Fringe work is amusing but WP:BLP1E. Former directorship of MRI Center is not remotely notable see WP:Prof#C6. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
    • How would you write an article on the basis of h-index? What sources do you use? Do you reference the highly cited papers? This is a biography, not a bibliography, after all. jps (talk) 03:23, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:Prof, its talk and archives. Best wishes. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
I don't think there is anything in that notability guideline that indicates how one is to write an article when all the sources are just the person's corpus of work. High h-index can be considered evidence for notability, but by itself it cannot serve as a the sole reliable source for a biography. jps (talk) 11:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We can't even reliably say his birth year. IRWolfie- (talk) 01:08, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From article "July 12, 2010 marks the 50th birthday of Professor Pierre- Marie Robitaille". Xxanthippe (talk) 01:17, 11 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
The article you are using is a fringe source with no reputation for fact checking. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:07, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Agree with Xxan across the board. Robitaille's former position as a director does not render him notable per se, but he does have a large body of published work. Radiology is a high-citation field, but his WoS h-index of 25 is probably significant within that field. There's sufficient WP:RS in his body of work to support at least a stub. More bio would be nice, but it's not a necessary requirement for a WP article. Agricola44 (talk) 18:13, 10 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment. Here is another case where GS h-index is less than WoS one! Xxanthippe (talk) 21:25, 10 February 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, The Bushranger One ping only 08:07, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think there are two different aspects that might be considered grounds for notability. First, recall that the article was created specifically to promote Robitaille's non-mainstream views on astronomy and cosmology. (The editor who created the article has subsequently been banned from editing on those subjects.) Robitaille has written (as the sole author) a large number of papers on these subjects, but none have appeared in mainstream reputable journals. He also paid for a full page ad in the New York Times to present his views, and a follow-up article describing this incident also appeared in the New York Times. Someone might claim that this is notable, but I think the consensus here is that none of this makes him notable. So, if this was the whole story, the article would have been a speedy delete.
However, during the course of this deletion discussion it was pointed out that Robitaille is listed as author (or rather, co-author) on several papers (involving radiology) that have appeared in reputable journals, and it's been suggested that these papers might meet the threshold of notability as a radiologist researcher. I did a google search and just randomly grabbed one of these mainstream papers:
Article: Changes in concentrations of neuroendocrine hormones and catecholamines in dogs with myocardial failure induced by rapid ventricular pacing.
Brian M Roche, Denise Schwartz, Robert A Lehnhard, Kenneth H McKeever, Tomohiro Nakayama, Timothy E Kirby, Pierre-Marie L Robitaille, Robert L Hamlin
American Journal of Veterinary Research 11/2002; 63(10):1413-7. · 1.35 Impact Factor
I don't claim this is representative, I just grabbed one at random. I assume this is a reputable journal, and the paper is mainstream research... but I'm not sure how much this counts toward notability for Robitaille, because he isn't really a Veterinarian, he is a radiologist. I'm not qualified to even guess what his contribution to this paper might have been. For all I know, the main authors might have just asked him to take an MRI of the dogs. I'm in the same boat when I try to assess the other papers on which he is listed as co-author. What we would like, ideally, is an independent reputable secondary source that says Robitaille is notable in the field of veterinary research, or radiology, or whatever. But secondary sources that mention him seem to be scarce. I'm reluctant to simply use an undigested tally of papers on which he is listed as co-author as verifiable proof of notability. We could really use an independent secondary source.
Also, the existing article is focused on the non-mainstream views and the NYT incident, which is (let's face it) a lot more notable to the average person than all those papers combined. A Wikipedia article is supposed to be focused on the notable aspects of the subject, so if the article is retained on the grounds that he is notable as a radiology researcher but not as a cosmologist or dissident scientist, then the article would need to be completely re-written.Urgent01 (talk) 00:41, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
His h-index is 26, I10-index about 39 or so by google scholar (which is always on the high side) which doesn't sound notably high. It seems standard for a professor whose chief publishing was in the 90s, but the value is field dependent. Second Quantization (talk) 21:05, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keepWeak delete It was pointed out to me that the slightly amusing nature of the entry doesn't play well with WP:BLP still don't feel very srong one way or the other but should probably adjust. Striking through my previous comments. Suggest expanding on the WP:PROF side of the equation with additional sources to more clearly demonstrate notability.Simonm223 (talk) 14:17, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Admittedly it is pretty amusing, particularly the last line: "The Times ad cost nearly a year of Robitaille's salary. When asked why he didn't just put it on the standard preprint archive, he replied that he didn't know it existed." Second Quantization (talk) 20:54, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it can be difficult to read motivation, but the way that the article is written now pretty much seems based to poke fun at the subject rather than construct a neutral biography. With that said, I find the arguments made for notability above to be marginal and unconvincing. He might be on the cusp of being a notable professor, but since we can't be sure and this is a BLP, we should err on the side of caution. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:07, 2 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) 04:53, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

El Kassasin Accident[edit]

El Kassasin Accident (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 notable auto accident. The King was injured but this isn't worthy of a stand alone article. ...William 16:38, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions....William 16:39, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions....William 16:39, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Well You See It As "Not Worthy" While We As Egyptians Would Like To Let Foreigners Know Our History & Every Single Piece Of It...Even If It's A Small Article, It Sheds Some Light On Why It Happened & How. Hima09 (talk) 16:55, 9 February 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, The Bushranger One ping only 08:06, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete An overly wordy article that engages in unneeded speculation and relies on one source. This is not the type of event worth having an article on.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as it stands there is no persistent coverage to meet WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 14:20, 23 February 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. G3: Hoax ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon Stadium 3[edit]

Pokémon Stadium 3 (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 such game Digifan23 (talk) 07:56, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: this is a hoax. Not sure if it could be speedied under WP:G3? BethNaught (talk) 14:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:48, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Avalon Cove[edit]

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

Article name refers to a 5 storey building (as per coordinates) while reference is to a 25 storey one. This confusion led to a lot of confused edits and reverts. Problem has been signalled on the talk page but no action was taken. Article creator has a long history of creating articles for non-notable buildings. While I can't find evidence of notability for either, even if any of the two buildings mixed-up here would be notable, best is to delete this mess. ELEKHHT 06:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. ELEKHHT 06:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. ELEKHHT 06:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article only has a few dozen words, but almost all of them contradict each other. The lead (and only) sentence describes it as having 5 floors, which matches the picture and descriptions in this source. At 337 feet, this is either the world's tallest five-story building, but then again the infobox pegs it at 25 floors. The link listed as a reference is for a 25-story building shown with a roof at 220 feet (not 337) and with a different address than listed on the Avalon site. Not only is there no claim of notability, I'm not sure that there is anything here to work with. Alansohn (talk) 15:53, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article contains almost no information. JDDJS (talk) 16:41, 24 February 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. SmartSE (talk) 22:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Walk With Our Ancestors[edit]

A Walk With Our Ancestors (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 self-published book (via CreateSpace). Author has only released self-published books. Unable to find any reliable refs. Article has been around since 2010, so I'm leery of doing a Prod. Bgwhite (talk) 06:01, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paganism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm very, very tempted to ask that this be deleted due to very, very blatant attacks in the article's history. You can see it at various places such as here. These aren't in the current version, but they're visible to anyone who would want to look back in the history- which is likely, given that many editors tend to look through the history to see if there were any prior usable RS in the article. I'm a little surprised that it wasn't speedied back then. There's also some rather blatant attempts to market the book in the past versions, but that I'm not as worried about. In any case, there aren't any reliable sources out there for this book and I think that speedying this due to the attacks in the article history would just be hastening the inevitable at this point. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've tagged it with a speedy for the article's history, but I'm unsure if it will be deleted since the material was removed. I'm just a little afraid of leaving this up when it has attacks of that nature in the history, although I know that we've kept article histories like that in the past. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:35, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • On a side note, I find it a little hilarious that someone did come in to edit the article and remove the hate speech and promotional-ish tones, yet it was reverted back to the prior version before the IP editor tried again and succeeded with the changes. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:38, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If you think the attacks are that bad, delete the revisions that contain them. There is a valid BLP argument. Personally I find them run-of-the-mill in the context of folkish heathenry, and I have not found sources documenting notability, so I expect the article to be deleted anyway at the end of this AfD. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:22, 23 February 2014 (UTC) Update: I went ahead and deleted the revisions containing attacks; the remainder of the history is still viewable. Yngvadottir (talk) 14:20, 23 February 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. Absent any evidence of in-depth coverage of the person themselves, bar a large amount of vague waves at Google hits, I don't think it's possible to close this in any other way. Indeed, one of the Keep comments directly on the Hindu and NYT sources, one of which was written by the subject themselves and the other is the very definition of "passing mention". No doubt this will go to DRV; you don't need to notify me. Black Kite (talk) 17:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Achal Prabhala[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Achal Prabhala (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)

Despite the assertions made in the prior AfD for this article in 2011 (the overall quality of which I am quite unimpressed by), this "researcher, activist and writer" does not meet the requirements of WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:AUTHOR or WP:NACADEMICS. Being a member of the WMF's Advisory Board does not confer notability. — Scott • talk 23:37, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Confer" means "bestow", and wp:notability is not bestowed.  "<fill in the blank here> does not confer notability" is a truism.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:18, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 13:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 13:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are two lengthy articles that cover the subject at The Hindu[27] and NYTimes[28]. He also has authored many articles for Outlook India. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:31, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Hindu article is an interview feature written by the subject himself. The NY Times article is about alternative methods of knowledge gathering for Wikipedia and features, inter alia, about half a dozen paragraphs about a video he made. He himself is briefly described in two sentences. Having authored some magazine articles also does not mean he reaches the thresholds set in the guidelines I referred to. — Scott • talk 19:00, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Hindu interview article is a feature written by the interviewer; not the interviewee. Although interviews are considered by some people to be sort-of-self-published-types, the publisher is an independent party who thought it important enough to interview the subject and then get it published. So isn't that good enough that some paras are written only about his work? Authoring only magazine articles may be wouldn't have been all that notable. But the combo pack here seems like one. (Don't know why many editors have given their disclaimers in the previous AfD. I will also follow them and note it that i have no idea who the subject actually is. Coming to know about him being associated with India Chapter of Wikimedia only through this AfD.)§§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:19, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm afraid that you are incorrect. The Hindu article is written in the first person, and no additional author is credited. WP:GNG specifically excludes this sort of piece from consideration by requiring sources independent from the topic. Even if it had been written by a member of the newspaper's staff, a single piece is not sufficient to pass the requirement of multiple sources set by WP:BASIC. — Scott • talk 16:02, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tending to delete Keep Hmmm, it's very borderline. This person clearly does not meet WP:NACADEMICS. And, in my opinion, he just fails WP:GNG.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC) Several sources were presented in this AfD discussion (detailed below by other editors). I think these sources prove that this person meets notability criteria.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:36, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as failing WP:GNG. Of all the places to keep borderline articles, BLPs associated with WM is not the best place to start. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:20, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I imagine the "Find sources: "Achal Prabhala" – books · scholar · JSTOR · free images" is meant to actually encourage people to search, to check people notability and to improve the article. I tried it and worked a bit on the article (i didn't check everything online because i got bored, and please consider to give my native Italian English some further edit). Achal Prabhala is a major expert in copyright in Africa, open educational resources and access to medicine in South Africa and India. He is unique in his cross-continental African Asian expertise and he is a well-know writer for cultural journals with quite touching reviews both on his writing (the best one I found is from the New York Times) and on his research. I agree that being in the Wikimedia Foundation advisory board doesn't make a person notable, but it makes sense to presume that a person is selected for an advisory board if he/she is notable (and it is quite impressive to observe the difference of quality in the articles based on the member's country of origin, if they do have an article). I don't particularly like Prabhala, but he is defiantly notable and it is pretty impressive to browse his work and to find it praised in an unusual big number of reviews for such niche topics. --Iopensa (talk) 00:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I appreciate your good intentions, that article now reads like a curriculum vitae. None of what you refer to causes him to pass WP:NACADEMICS or WP:GNG. Sorry. — Scott • talk 01:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The closing admin might want to consider this comment by Iopensa on Dream Focus's talk page: I obviously think the articles is a "keep" but I am not sure I should state it on the AFD; I have no COI but I know this person. — Scott • talk 22:51, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Internal controversies. Yes. As you see I didn't add my opinion in this delation process, I never hided that I know Achal Prabhala (I met him at Wikimania) and as I wrote above "I don't particularly like" him. I think "knowing him" and "not liking him" is a topic in this discussion and the closing admin might want to consider also this. But Wikipedia articles are not about liking or not liking. A "controversy" session in the article could acknowledge the fact that this person and his work have generated debate in the Wikimedia community; I think this is a relevant information (which needs of course sources). But from several comments it seems that "knowing him" and "not liking him" are influencing this discussion; they should not. --Iopensa (talk) 12:43, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Passes WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR #3 multiple book reviews. -- GreenC 16:55, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn for personal reasons. I know it will close Delete anyway. This is due to an editor whose involvement here I won't work with and for my own peace of mind. -- GreenC 08:54, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article has many poor sources that should be removed (first 20 or so). However there are also many solid sources that establish Achal Prabhala as a notable author per WP:AUTHOR. An author is notable based on reviews and/or articles written about the authors works, per clause #3:
The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
I highlighted "co-creating" because he is one of three editors in most of the books under review or mention. The reviews and/or commentaries of Achal Prabhala's works are as follows:
  1. Mail & Guardian (Lagos), July 2006
  2. New York Times, February 2008
  3. The New Age, March 2011
  4. New York Times, August 2011
  5. Sunday Guardian, August 2011
  6. Sunday Guardian, November 2011
  7. Sakal Times, November 2011
  8. The Hindu, December 2011
  9. Bidoun, 2012
  10. The Hindu, 2012
  11. Free Press Journal, 2012
  12. Afternoon DC, February 2012
  13. Live Mint (Wall Street Journal), March 2012
  14. New Indian Express, March 2012
  15. The Hindu, March 2012
  16. The Sunday Guardian, April 2012
  17. DNA India, April 2012
  18. Mid Day, May 2012
  19. The Hindu, July 2012
  20. Live Mint (Wall Street Journal), December 2012
  21. The Book Review (India), January 2013
  22. IP Watch, October 2013
This is 22 sources though there are some more. I don't believe adding more will help since we usually are OK with 4 or 5 sources - either the sources count or not. If they are ignored than a rules-based reason would need to be given for discarding AUTHOR clause #3 and/or these sources. -- GreenC 05:56, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very nice selective reading of WP:AUTHOR, but you skipped over the key phrase a significant or well-known work. This anthology he co-edited may well have received several reviews, but it is neither significant nor well-known, as a brief visit to Google will demonstrate. — Scott • talk 10:34, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually this is how the rule is always applied in AfD, it's not "selective" it's standard. The "significant and well-known" is of course evidenced by the existence of the reviews, how else could it be, we determine notability by the existence of the sources, of which this has many. The alternative is we give our personal opinion, and of course that will get nowhere since it's completely nonobjective and biased by the desired outcome of the AfD. You can't just ignore all these reliable secondary sources that have paid attention to this author's works. -- GreenC 17:18, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is absolutely not what "significant and well-known" means. "How else could it be"? How about - frequently referenced in other volumes? The subject of literary replies or analyses? Stated as inspiration for subsequent works by different authors? Frequent occurrence as a topic of discussion by non-specialist readers? You've got none of that. Just a few book reviews scattered over the period of less than a year. "Significant and well-known" is Principia Mathematica, The Lord of the Rings, Das Kapital, The Blind Watchmaker, In Search of Lost Time, On the Origin of Species. — Scott • talk 17:47, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Scott, your argument supports the point: a book is notable when its been the subject of attention by multiple reliable sources, and that's exactly what these sources are. You seem to be cherry picking and setting a high bar saying it must this or that type of source, meanwhile choosing to ignore the sources that exist. It amounts to an WP:IDONTLIKEIT for book reviews, these are reliable sources and that is what counts. -- GreenC 19:22, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No. It's not an "I don't like it" argument. You're still ignoring "a significant and well-known work". Having a dozen book reviews does not convey notability; there is a mandatory requirement, given by the very guideline that you quote, for demonstrable significance of the work in question for which the reviews exist. That is something you can't provide, because this book is neither significant nor well-known. — Scott • talk 19:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They are "well known" as evidenced by "a dozen" TWENTY-TWO sources that discuss them, which BTW is far beyond what most books get. You seem to be ignoring those 22 sources and twisting the rules around in such a way that you personally get to decide what is notable or not based on your personal literary tastes. You set an arbitrary barrier so high that only the likes of JRR Tolkien and Karl Marx are notable - a classic straw man argument and logical fallacy that would exclude 99% of what already exists on Wikipedia. -- GreenC 01:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's still not what "well-known" means. Since you seem to have taken exception to my random selection of titles, perhaps you would prefer some examples of well-known books in the English language by Indian authors: The Guide, Rich Like Us, Such a Long Journey, A Suitable Boy, The God of Small Things. That's just fiction; no doubt people familiar with academic literature would be able to provide examples of genuinely well-known non-fiction. Out of your list of sources, I count 11 as reviews of one book (the Quest anthology). 11 reviews does not make a work "well-known". When you put the title of a well-known book into Google, search results for it do not start puttering out on the second page. By the way, the 2008 piece in the NYT is a blog post that says "Prabhala, (whom I’ve known for years)..." - immediately disqualifying it as an independent source. — Scott • talk 10:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently "well known" is whatever you have decided it to mean. And since you want this article deleted, you have set the bar high enough to keep the article out. Rather we use the existence of multiple reliable sources to determine notability, it's the only fair and objective way to do it. -- GreenC 16:55, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well-known is a common English phrase that bears no relation whatsoever to the weak statement that you're attempting to distort it into. If having a dozen reviews made a book well-known, we would have thousands more article about books and their authors than we do today. — Scott • talk 17:36, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Having 22 sources is extremely unusual in literary AfD cases, that is why I vote strong Keep, most authors don't have this kind of coverage. You've set an arbitrary bar for inclusion so high that Wikipedia would struggle to have even a few thousand author articles. Notability is determined by objective information: the sources. That is not "weak", it is only weak if we turn away from objective sources of information. If there were no sources than the next best option is informed opinion, like you are making, but in this case we do have sources, and they should not be ignored. -- GreenC 21:38, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you're misrepresenting the guideline. Quote, again: a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. See there? A work. The criterion is having produced at least one work that is significant or well-known, which has been multiply reviewed. The work that has the most sources from your list is "The Best of Quest". Those sources - I numbered your list - are 5-11, 13-15, 18, & 20. Not 22 sources: 12. Some of them are multiple sources from the same publisher. When you count those together, the grand total of distinct origin sources for that book is: 8. It's not even double figures. Claiming that the book is "significant or well-known" is absurdly far from the truth. — Scott • talk 23:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(I have removed the BLP-violating post of this editor who, for the record, voted delete. Fram (talk) 13:26, 26 February 2014 (UTC))[reply]

— Indileaks (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Unsubstantiated conspiracy theories that have little to do with our notability guidelines WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR #3 multiple book reviews. Apparently this person has enemies. -- GreenC 03:38, 17 February 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, ‑Scottywong| squeal _ 04:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He is a Wikipedia foundation consultant. Having an article on him just makes Wikipedia more self-referential. I also have to say that he and people who make arguments like him do not understand the idea behind "no original research". There are lots of ways people can publish information, but Wikipedia should not be the forum where it is first made public.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:42, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A biased argument. If you disagree with his views it should not be part of an AfD rationale. See WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -- GreenC 21:38, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But I didn't say we should delete because his views are wrong. I said we should delete because he is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:39, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:AUTHOR #3 and the 22 sources listed above. -- GreenC 03:00, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Scarcity of significant independent coverage of the person to demonstrate his notability Staszek Lem (talk) 18:24, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:AUTHOR #3 and the 22 sources listed above. -- GreenC 21:38, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Although a prolific writer, the subject does not seem to have yet made much impact on others. Too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:32, 21 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
See WP:AUTHOR #3 and the 22 sources listed above. -- GreenC 03:00, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just writing stuff (even a lot, depending on how you count things) does not confer notability. There is no real substance here unless we stretch NAUTHOR, RS etc well beyond the usual bounds. - Sitush (talk) 02:33, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:AUTHOR #3 and the 22 sources listed above. -- GreenC 03:00, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've already seen it, thanks, but Scott is correct. - Sitush (talk) 08:51, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Based on large number of reviews found of his work, proving without any possible doubt he is notable. Reliable sources giving coverage is how you judge notability, not how many Google hits something gets, or whether you personally heard of them or not. Honestly now, how is this not clear? WP:AUTHOR 3. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Dream Focus 20:20, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I guess you didn't actually read the preceding conversation that I had with your "Article Rescue Squadron" colleague, because you're doing exactly the same thing, ignoring the parts of WP:AUTHOR that don't suit you. — Scott • talk 22:43, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • If their work is reviewed, then its "significant" or "well-known" enough to be reviewed. That's how these things are determined, not by how many Google hits they get. Dream Focus 10:02, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, that's completely wrong. We do not have an article for every person that's ever written a book that's ever had a review, which is what would be the case according to your incorrect understanding of significant or well-known. — Scott • talk 15:20, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've been in a lot of AFDs over the years, and this is in fact what always happens. Every book that gets reviews in reliable sources does in fact qualify for a Wikipedia article, and if their work is notable enough to be reviewed, the writer is notable enough to meet Wikipedia standards for an article. This is honestly the first time I've even found an AFD where people didn't understand this. The person and their work have significant coverage in reliable sources to pass WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Dream Focus 17:04, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Such extraordinary claims need extraordinary sources. Let's see them. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:25, 22 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep Coverage in just two independent sources can be sufficient to establish notability. The 22 sources listed by Green Cardamom represent abundant coverage. Not seeing how even the most desperate interpretation of WP:GNG could allow deletion. I also find myself convinced by Dream's analyses of WP:AUTHOR. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:28, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  I looked at an article in The Hindu and one in the New York Times, and have confirmed that these are in depth and show that this topic has attracted attention from the world at large and over a period of time.  Therefore the topic meets WP:GNG.  There is plenty of reason for concern about this topic trying to undermine our core content policies, but Wikipedia is not censored.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:47, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    What you you mean, "trying to undermine our core content policies", and what has censorship got to do with anything? — Scott • talk 14:11, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(I have removed the BLP-violating post of this editor who, for the record, voted delete. Fram (talk) 13:26, 26 February 2014 (UTC))[reply]

I filed this AfD on the basis of our policy on notability. I totally reject this SPA's fantasy comment about me and disassociate myself from the entire post. — Scott • talk 12:17, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • We now have two users that have a single edit each, here at this AFD, [29] [30], both most likely the same person based on their writing style and content of their post. Dream Focus 12:48, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural comment: I have just removed and rev-deleted the posts of two single-purpose accounts for serious violations of our BLP policy. These users are User:Indileaks and User:Whoo-this. Due to the system of reversion-deletion, this means that a large number of unproblematic edits by other editors here also appears struck-out in the record. The result of their edits is still visible here, and at first glance there were no (or certainly not such blatant) BLP problems with their posts. My action here indicates no support or opposition to either side of the debate. Fram (talk) 13:33, 26 February 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 13:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Chameleon '92[edit]

Operation Chameleon '92 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of any real notability within the context of the Siege of Sarajevo and the Bosnian War. There aren't any real results for Operation Chameleon '92 on Google Books, which leads me to believe that a deletion (or merger with Siege of Sarajevo) is best. 23 editor (talk) 22:49, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Yugoslavia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 14 February 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, Mkdwtalk 03:38, 19 February 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 Microsoft Home#Reference & Exploration software; clear consensus. (non-admin closure)  Gong show 07:45, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft Dinosaurs[edit]

Microsoft Dinosaurs (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 it is notable. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:04, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 03:34, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 03:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:12, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

National libertarianism[edit]

National libertarianism (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 totally unsourced article. No evidence that this is even a real subject; could be original research. Even if it is a real subject, there is no evidence that it is notable. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:26, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Everything it talks about is already covered in other political articles, plus the existence of "National libertarianism" is questionable at best. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 05:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No references whatsoever in article; but also unimprovable: everything that could be used as a source is not an RS but a blog and/or forum post. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 22:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unsourced neologism, verging on a hoax. There is a Stormfront discussion thread called "National Libertarianism?" among the less than 900 Google hits for this exact pairing of words, so I won't actually throw up the hoax flag. But it is very, very close. Complete and utter failure of GNG. Carrite (talk) 01:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Speaking of Stormfront, it looks like some sort of essay from that site. I suppose it could come back with proper sourcing and a clearer demonstration of notability, but I kind of doubt that it will succeed. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:33, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No references so it is original research. The flag images in the article appear to have been drawn for the article and should be deleted too. TFD (talk) 05:29, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unencyclopedic. Incorrectly referenced by person adding links to it in other articles.Rick Norwood (talk) 12:56, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I forgot.Rick Norwood (talk) 12:56, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 22 February 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 Incubate. There seems to be a consensus to delete, on notability grounds. But, two three editors suggested this be incubated, as it's a current event and reliable sources may appear in the next few months. This seems like a reasonable compromise, so moving this to Draft:Centenary of Military Aviation 2014 Air Show. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Centenary of Military Aviation 2014 Air Show[edit]

Centenary of Military Aviation 2014 Air Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While there has been publicity about this one-off air show, it hasn't actually taken place yet and it does not meet the WP:GNG. I would support a merge to RAAF Williams or other target, pending any future indications of Notability YSSYguy (talk) 01:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With all respect, has anyone looked for secondary sources so far? A quick and simple google search for "Centenary of Military Aviation" brought not only the "primary" website (www.airforce.gov.au › airforce.gov.au) but also a few news websites (e.g.: ABC Online, www.australianflying.com.au › news ) and others that highlight the relevance of this celebration (e.g.: www.visitvictoria.com ). So the fact that the editor who created the article hasn't yet provided secondary sources doesn't mean they don't (or won't) exist. Regards, DPdH (talk) 01:02, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Defence has received huge interest from MSM the week prior to CMA14 which will result in a flood of third party material being published shortly Hpeterswald (talk) 09:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back. Sources supporting this statement? What's MSM please? Thanks,DPdH (talk) 14:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it doesn't meet WP:EVENT. The RAAF runs a large-scale airshow each year (with the location rotating between the service's main bases), and this appears to be this year's. Each year has a theme of some sort, and there doesn't seem to be any reason to assume that this one will receive lasting coverage due to the centenary link. If it does we can always recreate the article. Nick-D (talk) 10:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose You're assuming that this year's topic is the Centenary of RAAF; and the airshow is not every year. This is a specific event to celebrate the Centennary - will look for supporting evidence. Regards, DPdH (talk) 10:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The RAAF holds a large airshow each year, rotating among its bases. The 2013 show was at Amberley in Queensland, 2012's was at Pearce in WA. YSSYguy (talk) 21:05, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Centenary at Point Cook allows the RAAF to display many of the inservice and historic aircraft used over its history and in storage at the RAAF Museum Hangers not available at other bases Hpeterswald (talk) 09:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This airshow may well "allow" the RAAF Museum to open the storage hangars, but will it open the storage hangars? Secondly, does the absence of a Centenary last year or next year forbid the RAAF Museum opening the storage hangars during any of the many annual public events held there? YSSYguy (talk) 23:14, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please explain why is not notable? Also if the current article is lacking, maybe it should be improved rather than deleted? For example, looking for secondary sources. Regards,DPdH (talk) 10:20, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Notability has not been established with the sources provided:
  • 1. ^ The Australian Flying Corps. AWM. Retrieved 6 February 2014. - This source does not once mention the subject of the article, which is the airshow celebrating the centenary of the Ausralian Flying Corps, not the Corps itself which already has an article. It merely provides context and verification of a date.
  • 2.^ "Project 2014".[32]. Retrieved 6 February 2014. - The only mention of the subject of the article in this source - which paraphrases a press release which is also used as a source - is a speculative quote ("is expected to be one of the major drawcards for the centenary of military aviation Air Pageant, at the RAAF Museum Point Cook, on 1st and 2nd March, 2014") which is indicative but not absolute confirmation.
  • ^3. "Bristol Boxkite replica flight testing". [33]. Retrieved 6 February 2014. - This is a press release published by the Defence Media Organisation, an agency of the Department of Defence who are the organizer of the event.
None of the above present a case which would stand up to a challenge under WP:N and furthermore the focus and scope of the article appears to be a brief summary of the history of the Australian Flying Corps, and a separate though related project to construct a replica aircraft for the centenary of said organization. The only actual information about the airshow is unsourced speculation about aircraft which may attend lifted from a press release which carries the caveat "All aircraft and displays are subject to operational requirements, weather and aircraft availability and may change." In my opinion improving this article when there is nothing new here that is supported by independent sources or is not already covered or able to be included in an existing article does not seem necessary. Dfadden (talk) 11:59, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. Good point indeed. Regards, DPdH (talk) 13:27, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Defence has received huge interest from MSM the week prior to CMA14 which will result in a flood of third party material being published shortly Hpeterswald (talk) 09:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I Support in principle retaining and improving the article, however the IFR2013 can't be compared "like for like" with the RAAF AFC Centenary event. However there are several articles related to "Fleet Reviews" that support existence of the IFR wikiarticle. Regards, DPdH (talk) 10:20, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, please read WP:OTHERSTUFF - the existence of one article is not a reason to keep another. At any rate, the Fleet Review was shown live on television, which provided a big dose of "significant coverage". As for the replicas, they are being constructed to mark the Centenary, not for the air show; and notability is not transferrable from the Centenary itself or the aircraft to the show. It is actually quite difficult to find any mention of the B.E. 2 at all, while the RAAF issued a media release last year announcing the Boxkite's first flight and a couple of media parroted it; so that doesn't help the case for notability anyway. YSSYguy (talk) 21:56, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with this particular argument. Regards, DPdH (talk) 10:20, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DPdH, I can't tell if you are for keeping the article or deleting, I find your statements contradictory, as my argument above is in support of deletion. Would you mind clarifying? Cheers. YSSYguy (talk) 21:05, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, didn't want to create confusion. I agree with your argument above, not wit the deletion of the article. Will make my position explicit. Cheers, DPdH (talk) 08:33, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
MSM to publish third party material on replicas constructed and other aspects of the Centenary at Point Cook Hpeterswald (talk) 09:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain- The fact that the RAAF is celebrating its centenary is itself a notable event; not too many air forces have achieved that milestone yet. Hence an article related to that milestone deserves to be included in this encyclopedia. As per my comment in the article's talk page, I think that this article needs to change its scope from the airshow to the centenary itself. Also needs to be linked to other relevant articles. The notability guidelines mention that there is no need to rush to delete an article, as there are no deadlines to comply with. Hence I propose that we leave this article alive and let it evolve, and include secondary sources once the Airshow is held (in 1 week time!). Kind regards, DPdH (talk) 08:46, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If I may make a small correction and I mean you no disrespect in doing so - if the article were to be retained as is your preference, the focus should be on the centenary of the Australian Flying Corps or Australian military aviation in general. The RAAF as a dedicated arm of the Australian Defence Force did not come into existence until 1921, prior to then military aviation was a responsibility of the Army. It may sound like I am being pedantic, but I assure you for many people it is an important distinction to make and to convey otherwise would be historically inaccurate and misleading. Regards, Dfadden (talk) 13:53, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying, that's why the celebration is about the "Centenary of Military Aviation", I didn't choose the right words. The new focus should be on the centenary of Australian military aviation in general. Regards, DPdH (talk) 00:49, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If this article is really about, or ought to be about, the centenary itself, then it is better handled within the context of the Australian Flying Corps. Except that that article already contains what tiny content is worth preserving here. And as to the idea that we should retain every article on an upcoming event in the hopes that maybe, just maybe, sufficient coverage to demonstrate notability will emerge in its wake...it would mean that WP needs to retain every article on every upcoming event, something far beyond the scope of this encyclopedia and something that would reduce the utility of WP as an encyclopedia. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I disagree. That the article is now poorly written doesn't mean that is not worth improving and keeping. I listed some secondary sources in the article's talk page that can be used to improve it. And we need to remember what Wikipedia Guidelines recommend about rushing to delete an article:

... . As there is no deadline, it is recommended to delay the nomination for a few days to avoid the deletion debate dealing with a moving target and to allow time for a clearer picture of the notability of the event to emerge, which may make a deletion nomination unnecessary. Deletion discussions while events are still hot news items rarely result in consensus to delete. There may be alternatives to deletion, such as merging or reworking the article so that it conforms with policy, ...

which we should consider. Regards, DPdH (talk) 01:50, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Defence has received huge interest from MSM the week prior to CMA14Hpeterswald (talk) 09:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree that the Centenary itself is worthy of mentioning, the argument is over whether the air show is worth a stand-alone article. The RAAF Williams article could easily have a paragraph or two about the Centenary, with a couple of sentences stating "an air show was held to celebrate the centenary and there were lots of aircraft there including a replica Bristol Boxkite"; beyond that, what else needs to be recorded about the show in an encyclopaedia? YSSYguy (talk) 02:55, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So... there is agreement around the notability of the centenary, and I have to concur that the airshow per se doesn't seem to be so notable. Hence my proposal: let's modify the article so it focuses on the centenary rather than the airshow. I also agree that there should be reference to the centenary in related wikiarticles, at least in the "RAAF Williams' and the "Australian Flying Corps" ones. Does this sounds acceptable, as an alternative to deletion? Regards, DPdH (talk) 12:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly not. There is essentially zero worthwhile content or sourcing to justify a freestanding article on this topic. Looking around for that rare anniversary where the anniversary itself is sufficiently notable, I see that even the Diamond Jubilee of Queen Victoria doesn't rate its own article. The absence of substantial, secondary, reliable sourcing for this article, either as an event or a commemoration, mandates its removal. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 14:03, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I second that, "worthy of mentioning" is a fair bit short of "merits its own article". YSSYguy (talk) 23:33, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
However, the criteria on "rare anniversaries" seems not to be applied uniformly, as the articles Centenary of Western Australia and Argentina Centennial do exist by themselves. The absence of an article on the Diamond Jubilee of Queen Victoria doesn't mean that it don't merit its own, only that has not yet been written; the existence of an article about the Silver Jubilee of Elizabeth II article supports this point. As for the lack of content, it's just a matter of looking for secondary sources (I've found some) and adding the information. Nothing "mandates" removal of this article, there are other options, as per the guidelines that I've quoted above. Regards, DPdH (talk) 00:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy incubate  This is an event that may or may not occur on 1-2 March 2014.  This is a WP:CRYSTAL problem.  wp:Notability will be in flux until at least 15 March.  The list of sources shown at Talk:Centenary of Military Aviation 2014 Air Show make it reasonable that there will be internationally-available coverage of the event if it occurs.  This article is in bad shape, and it contains promotion, so the sooner we get it out of mainspace the better.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for proposing another alternative. How is this incubation done, and by whom? Additionally, I didn't perceive the article as promotional, can you please clarify this point for me? So I would know what to look for in these cases. Regards, DPdH (talk) 05:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • See WP:Drafts in the sections "Incubation" and "Preparing drafts".  The process was recently moved from WP:AI.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The promotion isn't that focused, especially since the date of the event isn't in the article, but IMO that is what this article represents.  In twenty years, what interest will the world at large have in the pre-event stage?  Unscintillating (talk) 14:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incubate until event has passed to assess what secondary cites become available per rapid. Suggest waiting for 60 days after event (early May 2014) to allow for a publication cycle of trade/enthusiast magazines. DCB1927 (talk) 00:48, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Give me a break, this is hardly the sort of "breaking news event" addressed by WP:RAPID. These keep votes based on the rationale "let's wait, maybe something will crop up" simply emphasize the existing lack of substantial secondary coverage from reliable sources. If we want to expand WP's scope beyond being an encyclopedia to also host notices for any event that any editor wants to promote, then we should first change current policy. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As it stands cites are probably insufficient to warrant retention. Original editor has indicated third party cites are coming. Think it only fair to assume goodfaith and allow him/her to compile. Then assessments can be made with all the facts, rather than crystal balling on what my or may not happen. Hence my suggestion of waiting for the magazines to complete a cycle. By that stage it will be reasonable to assume there is nothing more to come. DCB1927 (talk) 02:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds ok except that you haven't explained why the article should remain in mainspace, indexed on Google, serving to promote the future event, without knowing that the event will or will not take place, when the article could be in draftspace.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:03, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point, perhaps incubation would be a better solution. DCB1927 (talk) 08:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I support the proposal of incubating in draftspace rather than mainspace, as I wasn't aware of this alternative when the discussion started. Should this be done when the AfD is closed? Regards, DPdH (talk) 09:03, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no indication that this is of note as far as airshows go, most airshows have a theme but that doesnt make them notable. Most airshows are annual events and some of these series (like the Paris Air Show or RIAT) have articles but as far as I know no modern individual shows have ever been notable enough for an article and I cant see why this one is. MilborneOne (talk) 18:20, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As said elsewhere in this AfD, changing the article's topic from the airshow to the centenary may be a better option. Anyway, the event has already happened and it's time for the editor who created the article to work on improving it, ideally incorporating all the feedback generated from this discussion. Regards, DPdH (talk) 13:06, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The actually "centenary" appears to be the cententary of the use of airfield (which was bought in 1912!) so probably difficult to make an article, neither the AFC nor the RAAF article make any mention of a happening in March 1914, in fact the source used in the article doesnt mention a particular event either, all a bit vague. It could be mentioned in the airfield article but interesting that a significant airfield has not have an article either! MilborneOne (talk) 15:48, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For the airfield article see RAAF Base Williams, although I believe at some point this article was merged when the RAAF consolidatated ops Point Cook and Laverton into one base and so the focus isn't as clear as it could be. Also, the AFC page is lacking some history, and I still believe this article should be merged into that one to complete the missing pieces. Dfadden (talk) 19:49, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural question: so far only 5 editors (including the one who created the article under discussion) have participated in this AfD. And only 4 of us have been actively discussing... How can other editors be included in the discussion, to make it richer and show a better "consensus"? (regardless the final decision) Kind regards, DPdH (talk) 01:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 10:42, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger One ping only 10:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

← Body of the discussion stays unchanged

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:58, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Domain7[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Domain7 (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)

Resubmitting this article to AfD. Previous nomination generated no discussion. Article subject is not notable. A Google search turned up multiple pages of promotional hits. Asserted awards are trivial. Sources fail WP:RS. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 22 February 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2014_February_19&oldid=1142629288"