Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 August 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 7 August 9 August >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Tone 12:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Disick

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Scott Disick (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)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
NO, do not redirect. The result of the second AFD was to merge. As long as the name exists as a link someone is going to make an article out of it. At most, manually move any salient info not already on Kourtney's page from Disick's current page, but it should be, thanks NickGibson3900 for reminding me, SALTED. Quis separabit? 22:14, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The redirect can easily be salted after deletion of the existing content. There are some incoming links leading to the subject's few roles outside of KUWTK (beyond the myriad of vandalism warnings on IP's) and they should at least lead somewhere. Nate • (chatter) 02:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It pains me to say this, but the subject of this article passes WP:GNG as evidenced by the sources found in the article and many other independent and significant sources found elsewhere. This guy is a reality shows celebrity and tabloid fodder, and all those stories published about him (like [1][2][3] and many more such stories) demonstrates that he is notable; like it or not. Dolovis (talk) 03:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dolovis: Yours appears to be, at this point anyway, a minority opinion, respected but, IMO, inaccurate, because, aside from:
a) some small-time, non-notable, squalid clubbing business "enterprises",
b) the deaths of his parents within two months of each other (a family tragedy but not conferring notability in any way), and
c) his well-known affinity for rolling cigars (which also confers no notability),
Disick's entire public profile is due to his being, as stated above, the consort of Kourtney Kardashian. Quis separabit? 21:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be confused about the meaning of WP:NOTABILITY. It is the significant and independent media attention that he enjoys, and not his achievements, which confers notability. For example, Prince Harry's entire public profile is due to his being the grandson of Queen Elizabeth II, yet the public and press are fascinated by this royal relationship, with the result being that he is wiki-notable in his own; not for any outstanding personal achievement he accomplished, but because he has the press clipping to prove it and therefore passes WP:GNG. The same thing has been demonstrated for Scott Disick - his public profile may be due to his being the consort of Kourtney Kardashian - but whatever the reason for his celebrity, he does pass the GNG and thus this article should be kept. Dolovis (talk) 01:05, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't agree with the comparison to Prince Harry or that "[Harry's] entire public profile is due to his being the grandson of Queen Elizabeth II". Harry's title, position, other family connections, and military, civic and personal experiences are his own. Quis separabit? 01:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
None of Prince Harry's accomplishments would be worthy for media notice if her were not the grandson of the Queen. But media attention which passes the GNG qualifies him for a stand-alone Wikipedia article. Dolovis (talk) 13:50, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as notability is not inherited, it says in the beginning of his own article currently "He is best-known as the boyfriend of reality star Kourtney Kardashian" and that's about all he's known for entirely. ShawntheGod (talk) 01:48, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as Disick is a popular character on the show, Keeping Up with the Kardashians WIth reality television becoming more and more popular, one does not need to accomplish much to become a household name. In addition to the show, Scott has a web series, [4]. While I do agree that he is a repugnant individual, I do think that he is notable enough for a Wikipedia page. He is the main topic of several articles, as mentioned above. The rules on notability [5] state, "In particular, if reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual." Sources have covered Disick in multiple events. I believe it is highly unlikely that will remain a low-profile individual. Although many cannot see why this ridiculous man is relevant, the masses have taken an interest in him. I believe this page is useful. Edit: After reading this article again, I learned that Disick was on the cover of one of my favorite childhood books. This actually was of interest to me. I feel like it would be hard to integrate this information into an article with Kourtney. Sorry, I'm new at this and keep screwing up the signature part. StaciLynn
  • Delete and redirect to Kourtney Kardashian#Personal life Disick has nothing else going for him except he is Kourtney Kardashian's boyfriend and father of her children. Without the Kardashian connection Scott is a nobody, take that away and what is there? His notability is as meaningful as the "Lordship" title his article states he purchased online.Pedro Pantalones (talk) 07:41, 15 August 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. Tone 12:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Awakening (2010 film)

[edit]
The Awakening (2010 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not to be confused by the 2011 movie of the same name. It's basically a copyvio (storyline anyways) of the IMDB page. Can't find anything to suggest notability. JayJayWhat did I do? 20:54, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Director:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Production:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 12:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PMJS

[edit]
PMJS (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 website. damiens.rf 20:40, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not seeing any third-party sourcing or in-depth coverage to demonstrate notability. Just another online forum. --DAJF (talk) 00:06, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A Google Group/Listserv which is no doubt crucial to the direct participants but would need wider evidence of encyclopaedic notability. From multiple searches, all I can find is a brief mention in the acknowledgements at the front of Thomas Donald Conlan's "From Sovereign to Symbol" (OUP, via Questia) of his appreciation of feedback from the members of the forum, which confirms the first point but doesn't provide encyclopaedic notability in its own right. AllyD (talk) 07:52, 10 August 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. Tone 12:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CodeCore Developer Bootcamp

[edit]
CodeCore Developer Bootcamp (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 organization isn't sufficiently notable and doesn't appear to meet notability criteria. Furthermore, there's no parent article that addresses the recent trend of coding bootcamps as educational institutions. This implies that this page was created for self-promotion purposes. Orun Bhuiyan (talk) 20:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 9 August 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 per WP:CSD#G7. Bbb23 (talk) 21:49, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

George Henry Tinkham

[edit]
George Henry Tinkham (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)

was a redirect; wrong George H. Tinkham Doprendek (talk) 20:16, 8 August 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) Antrocent (♫♬) 12:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chocolate spread

[edit]
Chocolate spread (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)

Essentially duplicates the content of Nutella - any small inclusions in this article can easily be included/merged into the Nutella article Geoff Who, me? 20:12, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 9 August 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. Tone 12:02, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Burr DeBenning

[edit]
Burr DeBenning (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 actor. Article was created by a long since banned user who created dozens of articles that fall short of the GNG. Ridernyc (talk) 20:11, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and speedy close. Quite obviously meets NACTOR requirements, and the cursory cookie-cutter nomination provides no basis for concluding otherwise. That the original creator started some number of deletable articles is no reason for summarily deleting everything he put his hands on. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:12, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To me the subject seems to pass WP:GNG and WP:ENT. --Jersey92 (talk) 01:11, 9 August 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. Tone 12:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unit of knowledge

[edit]
Unit of knowledge (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)

Pure original research. While there are various uses of the phrase "unit of knowledge" found in books, journals, and websites, the uses appear not to be defined, cohesive topics, but rather unrelated, self-contained uses for the task at hand (even if "defined" logically or mathematically). --Animalparty-- (talk) 19:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I can't find any sources for the concept or the notation. --gdfusion (talk|contrib) 20:00, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi everyone. I had fun writing this article but I am well aware of the moderation that most typically happens under these circumstances. Yes, I did come up with the term and I am somewhat comforted that you guys know that it is original research. It's pretty cool in my opinion and I make use of this concept daily while I'm at work. I'd like to retain this article in its entirety if at all possible. I, personally, don't think that there is anything in there that hinders the ideology behind someone who may make use of the term. If you guys want to participate in building on this I'd like to hear what you have to say. Let's not jump on this and delete it immediately though. I've been writing about this subject since 2009. I've published 3 books by now, one of which deals with this field (see scientocracy).Popcorn Sutton (talk) 20:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi, I agree that your idea is cool, but it's not necessarily something publishable in an encyclopedia (such as Wikipedia) yet. An encyclopedia is meant as a compilation of prior knowledge, not a generator of new knowledge. Take a look at the policy guideline linked to in the nomination, Wikipedia:No original research. --gdfusion (talk|contrib) 21:00, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm trying to let you guys know that this is not only my own philosophy. This has been a very pervasive concept. I can't tell you the degree of acceptance that a lot of people have towards this area of science and of the occupation that people who have this knowledge can get. This is data science. It's going to be very useful for a lot of people. The demand for this type of knowledge is sky rocketing and I think that it's going to be useful for other people who are interested. Popcorn Sutton (talk) 21:50, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—Wholly WP:OR. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 19:11, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. Wikipedia is not the place for new ideas; belongs in Wordpress article or elsewhere; was it in Google Knol at one time? I continue to listen to college lecture courses such as from Modern Scholar and The Teaching Company on many subjects including math and statistics, and this is the first time I've come across this unit of knowledge statistical idea, which confirms my sense that this topic is original research along with the statements above and the decided lack of references. Too bad Google Knol shut down. Topic does not meet GNG requirements.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:52, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but let the writer copy it to his userspace. Since he has published about it, it may very well become a notable concept in time and if so, then there's an article nearly ready to go. Kindzmarauli (talk) 14:18, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this unencyclopedic twaddle but then redirect to least publishable unit. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:43, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Save it please. I've seen countless sources where this topic is being discussed and taught to academia. Please, don't forget that I've been writing about this concept (among a lot of others) since 2009. I have 3 publications by this point and have sold/given away well over 500 of those copies. This concept is being taught alongside pattern recognition and machine learning. It's not only my own philosophy (as I have stated above) and since no one else is contributing to the article, I'm taking it upon myself to provide the citations. I had two of them this morning but by the time I got to work I have forgotten all about them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Popcorn Sutton (talk • contribs) 22:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as classic WP:OR. -- 101.117.89.252 (talk) 06:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NOT. CesareAngelotti (talk) 14:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is really unfortunate. I've spent so much time on this thought. I've tried to remove any hint of this being original research. I think that we should at least save portions of this for Wikipedia. The term is being used pretty often. No one is giving any suggestion of improving the article. I'd like to hear at least one suggestion of what we should do to the article to make it acceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Popcorn Sutton (talk • contribs) 16:07, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. About improving the article. Well here's a thought: I do not understand the first paragraph. Not one iota. While I am only a handyman, I have been educated at the world's foremost institution of higher learning and I therefore am not clueless. Can you please explain to me what the following paragraph means?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:01, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The term unit of knowledge is often brought up in the study of data science, statistical mechanics, cognitive science, computational neuroscience, artificial intelligence, computational linguistics, and computer science. The term is interchangeable with concept as well as the phrase "bit of information". A unit of knowledge is equal to any sequence of occurrences including no sequence of occurrences. A unit is determined to be a point of interest when it is significant (or above a statistical threshold). A point of interest is then determined to be knowledge when the addition of the next occurrence is above the threshold. In Statistics, a unit of knowledge is one portion of a three part equation. (from current article)
Hmmmm?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:01, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Still heartily confused. What is a "sequence of occurrences including none"? What does "mental verb sequences" mean? People think of "unit" meaning one thing, a basic building block, so the idea that a "unit" is a "sequence" can be confusing.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:24, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A basic formula for defining something (derived from Socratic ideas about the definition of a definition) is something along these lines:--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A (name) is a (category) that (point of difference).--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Example: A porcupine (name) is an animal (category) that (point of difference from other animals, that is, it has sharp quills; other animals lack this feature). The idea is to explain a new concept (porcupine) by showing its similarity to existing things (category) how it differs from other members of this category (it has quills), with the sense that the definition combines the idea of ANIMAL + QUILLS in the mind to teach about PORCUPINE. So somebody can learn what a porcupine is. So if somebody did not understand the concept of a porcupine, but knew about animals and quills, they'd get what a porcupine was.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Now, apply the formula to this subject...--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A (unit of knowledge -- name of what is trying to be defined) is a (??? -- category) that (??? -- point of difference).--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What I am saying is that I do not understand what the category is -- what is "a sequence of occurrences including none", and I do not understand how unit of knowledge differs from others in this category. Is unit of knowledge a philosophical term in the study of knowledge, that is, epistemology? What branch of knowledge does it belong to? Wondering.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:32, 14 August 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. Tone 12:04, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gabrielle Fitzpatrick

[edit]
Gabrielle Fitzpatrick (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 actress. Ridernyc (talk) 19:43, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:58, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to meet NACTOR requirements, and the cursory cookie-cutter nomination provides no basis for concluding otherwise. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:50, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
again can find no source outside of directories. Please stop this cookie cutter keep campaign and site real reason to keep. Ridernyc (talk) 22:05, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Johnston, Tony (8 March 1998), "Signing the blues", Sunday Herald Sun
Casamento, Joanne (26 February 1998), "Blue belle Fitzpatrick", Daily Telegraph
Martin, Carolyn (24 March 1998), "Hello Hollywood - Almost", The West Australian
Ellis, Scott (18 March 1998), "Gabrielle, the true blue belle", Adelaide Advertiser
Mitchell, Lisa (9 April 1998), "Decent Exposure", The Age
Notable via WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:30, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I had seen this a few days ago and had wondered how someone with this kind of filmography could possibly not meet our notability requirements. While I can't see the sources duffbeerforme has provided, it appears from their very titles that they are likely to constitute significant coverage in reliable sources, which is not at all surprising. --Mkativerata (talk) 11:02, 13 August 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. Withdrawn by nominator based on references supplies which show press coverage. – S. Rich (talk) 23:53, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald O. Loveridge

[edit]
Ronald O. Loveridge (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)

Other than being mayor, no distinguishing aspects to career. Fails WP:POLITICIAN criteria for statewide office or significant press coverage – S. Rich (talk) 19:34, 8 August 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. Tone 12:05, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jocelyn Seagrave

[edit]
Jocelyn Seagrave (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 actress. Ridernyc (talk) 19:31, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and speedy close. Appears to meet NACTOR requirements, and the cursory cookie-cutter nomination provides no basis for concluding otherwise. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:47, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
once again zero sources yet you make no keep rational and post cookie cutter keeps. Literally not one news hits [16] with the exception of IMDB. Ridernyc (talk) 21:59, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 9 August 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) .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:47, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scot Williams

[edit]
Scot Williams (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 actor. Ridernyc (talk) 18:38, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and speedy close. Clearly meets NACTOR and GNG requirements, and the cursory cookie-cutter nomination provides no basis for concluding otherwise. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:45, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 8 August 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. Withdrawn by nominator, no other arguments in favor of deletion, — Gwalla | Talk 16:15, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Leo the Lion (British singer)

[edit]
Leo the Lion (British singer) (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 like a fairly obvious candidate for being redirected to The Streets as only ref is unreliable. Launchballer 18:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article about artist does NOT seem like an obvious candidate for redirect to one group that the artist participated in. Article notes that artist is notable for contributing to song "Nite Nite", separate from that group. Another wikipedia article states that the single "hit #25 in the UK charts, spending six weeks altogether on the top 75.". Redirecting seems inappropriate. Calling for improvement of sources by tagging for improvement of sources would be acceptable. No justification for AFD. No assertion of wp:BEFORE being met. I am skeptical of the nomination, seems to call for wasting editor attention when mere tagging would be better. --doncram 05:46, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to add "and contains no other indication of notability". This is why I tag for AfD first - they can always be withdrawn, and it helps unearth stuff like this. I would argue that if Kano_(rapper)#2004-2005:_Home_Sweet_Home_.2F_Beats_.2B_Bars_.2F_Run_The_Road is to be believed, as the Streets were also on that record, he still hasn't had a hit single without them.--Launchballer 11:00, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, nominator further now saying that the article "contains no other indication of notability" does not mean wp:BEFORE was met. Nom has not asserted they did any searching at all. Please understand that it is basic to Wikipedia that an article does NOT require any sources at all. AFD is not for cleanup. Noting that an article does not include great sources yet, is not a valid argument for deletion, when the topic is notable.
Also, specifically there is assertion in the present article that there is independent significant career of this artist, which is an indication of notability separate from The Streets, so I simply do not agree that the article "contains no other indication of notability". It does.
However, I do agree that the linked passage in Kano (rapper) article does seem to somewhat contradict this current article. It is not clear what to believe from the two Wikipedia articles. However, in the current article, to me it seems that the "Solo career" section with its statement "Leo left The Streets so he could join Love Island and has collaborated with Kano on the single "Nite Nite" which became one of the most played videos on MTV that year" is a stronger assertion that Leo the Lion has an independent solo career of importance. I tend to believe that assertion more, rather than the Kano article on the point, as it seems more likely that editing in the Kano article could have been a tad imprecise, sort of in explaining who Leo the Lion is as relating him to The Streets, while perhaps being technically wrong if then implying that there was not independence at the time. Honestly this is speculation, i don't know the facts, nor does the nominator. Again, notability is asserted, and I think it better to cancel this AFD, tag the article instead, and return in 6 months or a year, instead of continuing here. --doncram 15:24, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn, but which tag should be used?--Launchballer 15:32, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. For a specific assertion in the article that is questionable, i find note somewhere: "If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, you can tag a sentence with the {{citation needed}}." For other suggestions, see wp:CTT. Perhaps {{BLP sources section}} in a specific section, or overall {{BLP sources}} for the article? --doncram 16:03, 10 August 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. Tone 12:05, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hate Woman

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Hate Woman (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)

Dafuq unintelligible gibberish. damiens.rf 16:11, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - It is a real person (e.g. here as well) but from what I can tell it is an ancestor that is mentioned by an author writing about her family tree. Interesting, but not nearly enough sourcing to meet the project's standards for a biographical article. Tarc (talk) 16:50, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 8 August 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. Tone 12:05, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Franklin (artist)

[edit]
David Franklin (artist) (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)

Curriculum vitae for non-notable artist. damiens.rf 16:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 16:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Multiple searches are not turning up significant coverage on this David Franklin (note there is coverage of a Seattle based artist and a Cleveland museum director, neither of whom appear to be this person). No evidence that his exhibitions or residencies are sufficient to meet WP:ARTIST. AllyD (talk) 17:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 8 August 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. Daniel (talk) 01:23, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Adam (diplomat)

[edit]
David Adam (diplomat) (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:BIO. There is no inherent notability of ambassadors, so that is not a valid keep argument. LibStar (talk) 14:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Significant coverage in reliable sources, and notable per WP:DIPLOMAT as he had a significant role in the 1973 Chilean coup-d'etat.[21][22] [23][24][25][26] Not surprisingly, it's difficult to find newspaper articles about him from the 1970s, but one should presume that these exist. He also appears to have edited a number of publications on diplomatic relations. (When searching, be sure not to confuse him with David J. Adams, whowhich was at the center of a diplomatic dispute in the late 19th century.) Soon we should add ambassadors to WP:OUTCOMES. Pburka (talk) 20:26, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
some ambassador articles have been deleted, and a discussion of the proposal to grant them inherent notability has gone nowhere. LibStar (talk) 10:46, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, and I've !voted to delete some, but I think the majority are kept. Pburka (talk) 11:29, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Still that wouldn't grant inherent notability. WP:BIO is still the standard for ambassadors. LibStar (talk) 14:26, 9 August 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. —Ascii002 (Talk • Contribs • Sign my Guestbook) 10:15, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nigam raut

[edit]
Nigam raut (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)

Violates the notability policy in WP:NSCHOOL after doing a Google search. TheQ Editor (Talk) 13:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as obvious recreation of deleted content. The initial article creating included insertion of the {{unreferenced|date=July 2014}} {{Orphan|date=March 2011}} templates, so this existed as far back as 2011 and has been recreated. Kindzmarauli (talk) 14:16, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I searched the deletion log and found this. I'm not sure if it's related to the present article though; the title doesn't seem to be related to the subject of the article at all. Also, note that the article claims that the school was established in 2049. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gdfusion (talk • contribs) 20:17, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 8 August 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. A7'ed and salted Courcelles 14:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rifat Emin

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

Does not appear to be a notable poet/author. A search revealed mostly false positives or otherwise unreliable of affiliated links. Possible autobiography. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:14, 8 August 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. Tone 12:05, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whiteheads United F.C.

[edit]
Whiteheads United F.C. (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 football club, playing at level seven on the Welsh national pyramid. No reliable sources indicating significant coverage beyond local press. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:29, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 8 August 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. Secret account 18:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Leonard Horowitz

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Leonard Horowitz (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 first asked at WP:FTN because I thought that this person might be notable from a WP:FRINGEBLP perspective. However, the consensus there was that he was not.

Alternatively, we could argue he might be notable from a WP:AUTHOR perspective, but I think he clearly fails the criteria there.

Finally, we could ask whether he is notable from a WP:PROF perspective. Again, it seems clear that he is not.

I cannot find a biographical criteria by which he is notable. Basically, he is used as a reference by the anti-vaccine or AIDS conspiracy theory community probably because of his nominal medical training. But mere mention of a person is not grounds for notability here. There needs to be significant coverage of the person as a person for a biography to be possible. The previous AfD's !Keep rationales don't to me indicate any good reasons to have a WP:BLP for the person and the fact that the article has had tagged problems for nearly half a decade seems to me to say that its problems are not solvable (probably because sources simply are not forthcoming).

I believe that the situation is such that we don't have good reason to keep this article. His lack of notability furthermore hampers any attempt to create WP:NPOV and reasonable evaluation of the content. Some preference a default to delete mindset for biographies and I would say that this is a prime example where such an instinct could be quite helpful. jps (talk) 12:11, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
* Keep notable author and producer. Also possible discoverer of the true origins of HIV.

Quote: It may be of interest to some that in 1996 Dr Leonard G Horowitz of Harvard, (DMD, MA, MPH) published his award-winning, best-seller: “EMERGING VIRUSES-AIDS and EBOLA-Nature, Accident or Intentional”. After exhaustive research of stunning scientific documents, Dr Horowitz claims that during the 60s the American National Cancer Institute, researchers mixed viral genes from different animals “to produce leukemia, sarcoma, general wasting and death”. See Al-Ahram Weekley. He is the author of the best seller EMERGING VIRUSES-AIDS and EBOLA-Nature, Accident or Intentional. This should not even be up for deletion review. (Boss Reality (talk) 10:40, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

)


  • Reply to Randykitty, :) :), somehow I had a feeling that you would jump on what I said. But what are your own thoughts ?
  • Delete - seems to fail WP:BLPFRINGE and WP:SIGCOV, among other policies and guidelines. WegianWarrior (talk) 15:21, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Dr Leonard Horwitz, Bestselling author and winner of Author of the year award 1999 by World Natural Health Organization. Author of over 12 books including Emerging Viruses: AIDS And Ebola : Nature, Accident or Intentional? was a bestseller.
    Customer Reviews of Emerging Viruses: AIDS And Ebola : Nature, Accident or Intentional?
    Dr. Leonard G. Horowitz's national best-seller (that the New York Times refused to review) provides the first in-depth exploration into the origins of HIV and Ebola [27]

    A range of reviews See all 47 customer reviews (newest first) >

    Just a snippet here where the reviewer R. Wood says Quote: "Interestingly, the bad reviewers of this book have only convinced me of its accuracy. None of their criticisms strike me as being sound. A few of them criticize the book for scaring people" Sourced from Amazon.

    Now, I'm not in any way trying to use this to validate the book or the author. All I'm doing is using an example of a reviewers observation of reactions to new and challenging information.

    Award winner: 1999 “Author of the Year Award” from the World Natural Health Organization. The Spectrum MAY 8, 2001 Page 57 (Boss Reality (talk))

  • Further Comment:, Isn't Dr Leonard Horowitz a film maker as well. His list includes >> Talk Show Host, >> Author, >> Filmmaker, >> Music Producer, >> Public Health Authority, >> Emerging Diseases Researcher, >> Intellectual, >> Entreprenuer, >> Keynote Speaker, >> Investigative Reporter, >> Writer, >> Knight's Hospitaller, >> Health Educator, >> Activist, >> Counselor, >> Healer. I guess some of what he does may tread on the toes and sensibilites of others. (Boss Reality (talk) 23:03, 14 August 2014 (UTC))[reply]
  • More coverage out there in newsland

    >> Article from the Al-Ahram Weekly Issue No.1208, 7 August, 2014 by reporter Not Ebola too Lubna Abdel Aziz .... Article: "Not Ebola Too", View article

    >> Article from The Daily Mirror Jul 29, 2014 14:16 by reporter By Patrick Mulchrone .... Article: "Ebola conspiracy theories spreading fast as outbreak travels round globe - was deadly virus created in laboratory?", View article

    >> Article from iciLome.com [8/14/2014 3:12:49 AM] - Petition à l'union Africaine - Afrique - PETITION A L’UNION AFRICAINE POUR UNE COMMISSION D’ENQUETE INTERNATIONALE DU CONSEIL DE SECURITE DE L’ONU ET DE L’UNION AFRICAINE SUR L’ORIGINE DU SIDA ET DE L’EBOLA Proposée par le Professeur Pascal ADJAMAGBO - View article

    >> Article from Yahoo News Romania De redactia@bursa.ro (Redactia Bursa) | bursa.ro – Mi, 6 aug. 2014 "Ebola - o armă biologică, creată în laborator?" - View Article

    >> Article from Sexenio 03 de agosto de 2014, Article: "El ébola ¿realidad o conspiración en África?" 03 de agosto de 2014 por Sergio Noriega Sección Lifestyle View article

    >>> Article from The SPECTRUM MAY 8, 2001 View article MAY 8, 2001

    >>> Article from The SPECTRUM NEWS RELEASE April 16, 2001 Page 47 NEWS RELEASE April 16, 2001 View article NEWS RELEASE April 16, 2001

    There's more out there. The fact that with what's happening today, Dr Leonard Horowitz is now quoted in more than passing in current events around the world from England to The United States to Romania to Africa proves he is highly notable and the reasons for his nomination for deletion are without any foundation. Dr HOrowitz is a highly notable figure. He's a best selling and award winning author. This is beyond a doubt. And there are more news articles than what I've put in here. (Boss Reality (talk) 09:38, 15 August 2014 (UTC))[reply]

  • Better to keep this article as there is more in the news than I have popped in here. Let's improve the article and work together on it please. It would be a very bad idea to destroy this article. Let's work together to improve and make it the great article it deserves. Thanks (Boss Reality (talk) 11:10, 15 August 2014 (UTC))[reply]
    • Question Is there any evidence that his self-published book Emerging Viruses: AIDS And Ebola : Nature, Accident or Intentional?" was actually a best-seller? I can't find any. [28] isn't a reliable source for this. Amazon ranks it at "Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #69,389 in Books" - hardly a best seller unless you have a very narrow category. And the award mentioned is a trivial award from a non-notable organisation. Unless there's another one I missed. Dougweller (talk) 11:21, 15 August 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) czar ♔ 14:58, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

American Journal of Cancer Research

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
American Journal of Cancer Research (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)

Medical journal that doesn't appear any more notable now than it did at its first nomination. I was unable to find any sources that establish the notability of this journal.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 11:38, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 8 August 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. Secret account 18:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James Legan

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

The article doesn't even try to suggest there's anything notable about this player. Fails WP:NCOLLATH, WP:NHOOPS and WP:GNG with coverage only from some local newspapers. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 11:00, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 11:00, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 11:00, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 11:00, 8 August 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. Editors on both sides of this discussion offer valid, policy-based arguments. Ultimately, I find a weak consensus in favor of keeping the article, as those supporting deletion have failed to adequately refute comments from those who support keeping that note the article has references spread from across several months, which indicates somewhat lasting notability, at least insofar as there are ongoing trial proceedings that continue to garner media attention. Consequently, I am closing this discussion by keeping the article, cognizant that this consensus is weak at best, and there may eventually need to be a third nomination way down the road. Thanks to all who participated for their good faith and valid arguments. God bless. Go Phightins! 15:51, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Franklin Regional High School stabbing

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Franklin Regional High School stabbing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

THere wasn't a longstanding effect. No deaths. WP:NEVENT. Could be summarzied in high school article. Beerest 2 Talk page 18:40, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 1 August 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, NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 10:43, 8 August 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) .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:20, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sanatan Dharma College

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

Fails WP:V as well as it lacks valid reference to prove WP:notability. CutestPenguin (Talk) 10:42, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CutestPenguin (Talk) 10:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CutestPenguin (Talk) 10:52, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Necrothesp: I would like to see a reference which indicate its existence. CutestPenguin (Talk) 13:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a link to the website. That's sufficient evidence of existence. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:56, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As per WP:AfD I am withdrawing the AfD nomination. CutestPenguin (Talk) 14:00, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Huon: That's alright! You can close the Afd discussion as per Wiki Policy and even I have changed my opinion and I would like to withdraw this AfD. CutestPenguin (Talk) 15:18, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is good to have look at WP:INDAFD at AFD, as Google search often doesn't give much results and an institution might appear non-notable. Though this one has some images see here. I did a search in Indian newspapers and found otherwise.see here, will be adding them shortly. Notable enough to survive. --Ekabhishektalk 04:15, 15 August 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. Secret account 18:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maat Morrison

[edit]
Maat Morrison (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 subject appears to not meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:BASIC for a Wikipedia article. Source searches are not providing reliable sources. NorthAmerica1000 09:25, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 09:27, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 09:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Is clearly that the musician do not fail WP:MUSICBIO according to this:
  1. Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network.
  2. Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network.

You can't judge by the age of the subject, it was written by me, by making emailed interviews, taking resources, among other sources. HaroldSalasI (talk) 20:13, 11 August 2014 (UTC) — HaroldSalasI (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Neither of those claims are substantiated by reliable third party sources. STATic message me! 16:26, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. His single "Gone" got very popular in the national radio (for the artist, international) United States radio. Which clearly do not fail WP:MUSICBIO. The artist does not have WP:GNG, but the subject can be marked as a stub. As hereinbefore mentioned in the subject, his album will be released by a major label, unknown by the time. Thee subject, clearly meet WP:MUSICBIO and WP:BASIC. The reliable sources are going to be provided by the other collaborators. John00702 (talk) 04:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— John00702 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

All articles must meet WP:GNG, they cannot meet WP:MUSICBIO without it. There has been no reliable third party source that has backed up the claim of being played on radio, yet alone being in rotation. Since he is only signed to his own independent "record label", it would be literally impossible for his music to get played internationally like he claims. Coverage in reliable sources must be provided now or the article will be deleted, a google search turns up nothing useful. STATic message me! 16:26, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
His single 'Gone' has been on rotation in 2 countries (Dominican Republic and Colombia), for 3 months, and played 100+ times by a major radio station (if need the name, message me). We need 1 month, in order to get at least 10 coverage in reliable sources (the radios, have a monthly edition), which he (the artist) will be included in. We claim for a little respect for either the artist or the independent record label. It's not impossible to get played, since the single is being promoted by a marketing specialist, and me as the publisher, around the world. HaroldSalasI (talk) 19:36, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well that explains it. You are his publisher so you have a conflict of interest. If he was as notable as you claim, he would have been covered in multiple reliable sources. STATic message me! 07:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of coverage in secondary sources. The only independent source currently in the article is a one-paragraph review of the song "Gone". That does not qualify is substantial coverage of the artist. The assertion has been made that his song is in rotation in two countries, but no reliable secondary sources have been presented to back that claim up. Yes, it's possible that his song will chart in the US and get covered by Billboard, but that's speculation of a future event, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Until those future events happen, Morrison is not (yet) a notable musician. —C.Fred (talk) 20:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The subject of this article has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. A Google search of the subject doesn't yield any positive in terms of reliable sources. Versace1608 (Talk) 01:32, 13 August 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. Tone 12:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pam Wormser

[edit]
Pam Wormser (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)

Written like a tribute site, this bio is about someone who curated a local museum. As admirable as this is, they aren't notable Gbawden (talk) 09:06, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 8 August 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. Tone 12:09, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Jonker

[edit]
Louis Jonker (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)

Tagged for notability since 2013, I don't believe he meets WP:Academics Gbawden (talk) 08:54, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Full professor at major South African research university, apparently ranked 3rd best in South Africa by multiple surveys. Generally, tho not a formal guideline, full professors in major research universities are likely to be notable. The only exceptions in the last 5 years have been people whose field of study is not looked on here as rigorous, which can be reasonable, or where there is a prejudice against the field or the person, which is not reasonable. His field is theology, generally considered a rigorous academic discipline. . Is there a prejudice against it? In addition to his doctoral thesis, he published 5 books as author, 2 as editor or coeditor. As the field is fairly narrow--Old Testament interpretation-- and two of the books are in Afrikaans, and 3 of the others published either in Germany or south Africa, there won't be many holdings in WorldCat, which lists almost exclusively US & Canadian libraries ,and only the largest european libraries. For the two by a US publisher, the one he edited has 508 holdings, which is extremely high for theology (Historiography and identity (re)formulation in Second Temple historiographical literature). The other has 81, which is also quite respectable for a book published just one year ago in this rather slow-moving subject. One of the European publications has 131, another 102. A check for reviews in this field will take resources I do not have available online. I consider the holdings sufficient to show that he is a specialist in his field according to WP:PROF. Unless we wish to make the value judgement we regard theology as worthless, he's notable. DGG ( talk ) 14:37, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 8 August 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.  Sandstein  09:39, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Solar cycle 1

[edit]
Solar cycle 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All information contained on this page can be found at List of solar cycles, and is thus unnecessary. Straw poll at WT:Astronomy agrees. Primefac (talk) 16:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Surely all these AFDs on the Solar cycle pages would be better as a bundled nomination as all the pages look very similar? As it is you are going to have 14 different AFDs where people will likely post the same comments on each one. Alternatively one page could be nominated first to see how it goes and then the rest could be group nominated afterward depending on how the first one goes. Davewild (talk) 16:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I realized that a bit late, I'm going through and editing them now.Primefac (talk) 16:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks. Davewild (talk) 16:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Other pages included in this AfD nomination (for the same reasons as Solar cycle 1):

  • Delete: Nothing in any of the articles listed would take more than three table columns to list; in order for these to be kept there would need to be more than generic wording and a generic image. If old observational images (i.e, notebook sketches) from observations at the time can be found, I would reconsider. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Vote changed; see below.) Pi.1415926535 (talk) 14:44, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all - There are individual articles for all of the solar cycles since the recording of solar activity began in 1755. Some of the solar cycle articles have more information than the table at List of solar cycles (including solar cycles 4, 10, 12, 15, 17, 19, 21, 22, 23, and 24, which are not part of this nomination). It is true that the remaining solar cycle articles do not contain much more information than the table. That is because no one has added any information yet. Surely, more information is available for all of these solar cycles, and much of that information would not fit into a neat table. For instance, this source includes an comparative analysis of solar cycles 18, 19, and 20. This information could be added to the articles on those solar cycles, but it could not be added to a table. I don't see any reason to delete half of these articles, leaving us with standalone articles for half of the solar cycles, and no standalone articles for the remaining articles. This would result in an unnecessary inconsistency that creates more potential problems than it solves. Each individual solar cycle is clearly notable per WP:GNG, and there is clearly the potential for adding more material to all of these articles. Per WP:BEFORE, we should be trying to improve these types of articles rather than deleting them. ‑Scottywong| converse _ 17:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you wanted to do a include a comparative analysis of 18, 19, and 20, it seems like one consolidated article would be the right place to do that. If there's three distinct articles for those three distinct cycles, in which one would the comparison go? -- RoySmith (talk) 18:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean that the comparative analysis itself would go into each article, but the details on each cycle that are included in that source could be added to each individual article. For instance, the source mentions that cycle 18 was "the cycle of 'giant' spots". More detail on the unusually large size of the sunspots during cycle 18 could be added to Solar cycle 18, but wouldn't be something you could easily add to a table. I don't have access to more than just the summary of that source, but I'm sure there is tons of unique information in it that could be used to beef up our articles on cycles 18, 19, and 20, if not other cycles. My point is that there is more information out there that could be used to write something more than a stub. Just because no one has expanded the articles past stub status is not a reason for deletion. See WP:NOEFFORT and WP:RUBBISH. ‑Scottywong| gossip _ 20:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning keep all. My arguments are the same as Scottywong, more or less. I don't see one good reason why e.g. Solar cycle 20 and the others could not be expanded to something more substantial than they are now. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:26, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. The information is notable and important; merging to the parent article would make it too large; and there is still plenty of material for article expansion. -- 101.117.57.200 (talk) 02:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, merging to the parent article would take no space at all, since the information present in these articles at the moment is already present there in its entirety. I don't plan on listing an opinion on this debate itself since I have mixed feelings about what should be done. StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:56, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I completely agree that the articles listed could be expanded, but at the moment there appears to be no additional information written on these cycles. In my mind these articles fit in the same category as the asteroid/minor bodies articles that StringTheory11 is currently AfDing/merging - one could argue for keeping them simply because they could in theory be expanded at some point in the future, but they aren't kept. Primefac (talk) 12:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete all including all cycles before and including 23. I question whether the three most recent cycles are written at an appropriate level of detail, but the others are nothing but entries in a list padded out to an article and decorated with a random picture of the solar disc. Most of the data seems to come from three sources which one suspects also display the data in a table, and contra the statements above I think it's a safe bet that the only way to obtain even some of the same information for cycles that are any much older is to go to primary research data, if it even exists. My impression from the article on the current cycle is that its copious detail is in part enabled by NASA website data availability (particularly the reliance on the spaceweather site) and partly on the more or less permanent presence of monitoring satellites, which data is obviously not going to stretch back into the 1700s. The argument that the huge article on the current cycle justifies all previous cycle articles is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Mangoe (talk) 17:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. Notable articles, they do contain a little more information than parent articles and there is scope for them to be expanded. These should be improved rather than deleted.Blethering Scot 19:01, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if the outcome is deletion, then these should all be delete-&-redirect, as they are all viable search terms for entries on the list, so delinking the list entry and redirecting the title to the list would be the thing to do. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can agree with that.Primefac (talk) 09:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all of these into List of Solar Cycles, or something like that. Clearly, a significant and notable topic, but this is the wrong presentation. Break out the few cycles about which there's something interesting to say, and lump the rest into a tabular presentation. No longer sure this is the right answer, so striking my !vote and just commenting more below -- RoySmith (talk) 17:52, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get right on that.Primefac (talk) 18:06, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:EDITATAFD, please don't merge/redirect the article until this discussion has been closed. I have rolled back your edits for the time being. ‑Scottywong| spill the beans _ 18:20, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Scottywong - sorry about that, I read things too fast and thought the discussion was over. My fault for being over-zealous. Primefac (talk) 18:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all into the list or delete perhaps describtion to the solar cycles can be added to the list, but individual articles for each is like having articles on each Pokemon.Forbidden User (talk) 07:50, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. All these article can viably be expanded with historical discussions of events linked to the solar cycle (geomagnetic storms, notable sunspot observations, etc.). Merging to the list make such expansion very difficult. -- 101.117.58.208 (talk) 11:34, 7 August 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, NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 08:42, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all there are articles published on the different solar cycles or peaks talking about numbers of sunspots, or their effect on radio communications. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:12, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all Chiefly per Scottywong and all the others who have made this argument; even in those cases where there is not currently cycle specific information, there is certainly scope for such, and those articles which do have more specific information certainly need to be kept as they are. Vanamonde93 (talk) 12:38, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The main issue should be whether the solar cycles are individually notable.Forbidden User (talk) 12:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge most to list: per a cursory Google search, most solar cycles blatantly fail the general notability guideline and WP:NASTRO. Except for the most recent cycles, most have one or zero sources with anything more than a sentence on the cycle. :@Graeme Bartlett, Scottywong, and Frmorrison: where are all these "articles" and "studies" you keep talking about? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 14:05, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Pi.1415926535: You've already voted once, at the top of this page. Which way would you like to vote, delete or merge? Please pick one and strike the other. I provided one example source above that has more information on cycles 18, 19, and 20. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to find an example source for every last cycle, but I'm sure they exist. For instance, each cycle could have additional content describing the scientist(s) who primarily made the solar measurements during that particular cycle. It wouldn't take much imagination to expand these articles past stubs. That it hasn't been done yet is not a reason to delete them. ‑Scottywong| squeal _ 14:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies - I misunderstood how relisting works. I've struck my old vote. You continue to insist that information is available, but that's not true. Of the cycles before 13, only two - 4 and 9 - have even a single paper largely discussing them, and up to about cycle 17 I don't see more than one paper in Google Scholar. NASTRO holds that "A single paper is not enough to establish notability for most objects." For each cycle, until and unless proof of notability is established (and notability is individual; one cycle being notable does not automatically make others notable), it should be redirected to the list. For each cycle, as soon as an article with multiple substantial sources is shown to be possible - i.e, anyone offers any sort of proof that your claimed expansion is even possible - then the article can created. Merging with redirects would preserve the history, making it recreation very easy when multiple substantial sources are actually produced. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 15:05, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is more to look at than just scientific papers on the different cycles. Even though the cycles are primarily of scientific interest, there are other aspects that can be discussed in the articles. For instance, who are the scientists that made the observations in each cycle? Under what circumstances were the observations made? What type of tools and methods were used to observe the sunspots? ‑Scottywong| verbalize _ 16:42, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We should take a step back and consider usability. I think we're all agreed that the topic is notable, and we're looking for the best way to present this information to our readers. If cycles 1-18 (or whatever) are all boilerplate, and picking up from 19 on we have lots of information, then I think the most useful presentation is one article covering 1-18 in a tabular format, then individual articles for 19, 20, 21, etc. If we end up finding enough material to write full-strength articles about (for example) 6, 8, 9, 14, and 17, it might be a little silly (and hinder usability) to break out just those random ones into their own articles, and have a list covering all the rest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoySmith (talk • contribs) 16:49, 8 August 2014‎
Well you've just talked youself into a keep !vote then. You seem to have missed that some cycles (4, 10, 12, 15, 17, 19) have not been nominated because they already have more information. SpinningSpark 17:20, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, you're right. I did not notice that. Keep, then. I would also redo Template:Solar cycles to be a lot less verbose. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And that's not even mentioning the articles on 21, 22, 23 and 24, some of which are very detailed. SpinningSpark 18:59, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep of solar cycles 2 through 20; none of those pages have an AfD nomination notice and thus have been nominated out of process. Keep solar cycle 1 as it is the first identified solar cycle and there must surely be more to say about it than that; such as who identified it, which astronomer(s) made the sunspot observations etc. Without doubt this information is available. Keep solar cycles 8 and 9 as their junction occurs in 1843. What's the significance of that? That is the year that solar cycles were discovered by Samuel Heinrich Schwabe and hence 8 and 9 are of great historical significance. The articles don't currently say anything about this, but they could do. Keep all per User:RoySmith's continuity argument. SpinningSpark 17:30, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Answering my own question, it was Johann Rudolph Wolf and I've now added it the article. There is thus the additional reason for keeping that I have made a contribution to it :) SpinningSpark 18:29, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Spinningspark if you'll look at the histories of the other Solar Cycles mentioned in this AfD, you'll see that someone (incorrectly) went through and removed ALL of the AfD notices because they didn't see this AfD containing all of them. I mentioned it to the user (Joe_Decker) and they remarked upon it on my talk page; I reverted the edits but it looks like ScottyWong undid my undo. Primefac (talk) 19:52, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that was unintentional. I only meant to undo the edit you made to redirect each article. We can replace the AfD templates, if necessary. ‑Scottywong| prattle _ 20:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it's necessary. Why does there even need to be a discussion? SpinningSpark 21:02, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There is plenty of material on all these solar cycles; all of them are notable and expandable. Some of this vast array of information is slowly being added to the articles (including some important historical information about solar cycle 1). Why restrict ourselves just to the information in the table? AFAIK, all of the articles now contain more information than what's in the table, which makes the nomination incorrect. -- 101.117.91.154 (talk) 04:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment And in answer to a point raised by Pi.1415926535, old sunspot photographs and drawings exist for many (possibly even all) of these cycles. Some have been added to the articles. -- 101.117.91.154 (talk) 05:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment for cycle 20 I find these two article on Jstor: "SOLAR MAGNETIC FIELDS-LARGE SCALE" ROBERT HOWARD Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, Vol. 83, No. 495 (October 1971), pp. 550-560; and would you believe: "An Inquiry into the Effect of Sunspot Activity on the Stock Market" Charles J. Collins Financial Analysts Journal, Vol. 21, No. 6 (Nov. - Dec., 1965), pp. 45-56 ? for cycle 19: P. S. Freier and W. R. Webber, "Exponential rigidity spectrum for solar flare cosmic rays," J. Geophys. Res. 68, 1605 (1963). and "The Physical Characteristics of Solar Flares"

S. B. Curtis Radiation Research Supplement, Vol. 7, No., Space Radiation Biology. Proceedings of a Workshop Conference on Space Radiation Biology Sponsored by the Office of Advanced Research of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration of the United States of America, held at the University of California, Berkeley, September 7-10, 1965 (1967), pp. 38-42. and "Radiation Exposure in Air Travel" Hermann J. Schaefer Science, New Series, Vol. 173, No. 3999 (Aug. 27, 1971), pp. 780-783 . For cycles earlier than 16 it seems this may not be the terminology they used at the time, so we may need to find other ways to search. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:48, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even so, there are modern researchers looking at historical data who study the early cycles by name, for instance 155-day Periodicity in solar cycles 3 and 4. With minimal effort I can find other relevant papers studying a specific time period that refer to the modern cycle numbers (though not in the title). Examples: Two Early Sunspots Observers: Teodoro de Almeida and José Antonio Alzate and On the connection between solar activity and low-latitude aurorae in the period 1715–1860. SpinningSpark 08:07, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. These articles are really container articles for events in a given season and sources that do not directly address the season may still confer notability on the season as a whole. They are to be compared to the "yyyy hurricane season" series of articles. While OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, it is relevant that there has been some testing of this at AFD but the only ones that have been succesfully deleted are articles that are WP:CRYSTAL (eg 2015 hurricane season) or WP:FORK violations. SpinningSpark 08:21, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the work that's been done establishing notability. I've been convinced by the work that's been done - there's enough information there to make redirecting to a table probably wasteful. Please, though - remove the modern image from the articles about old cycles. That's misleading more than it is informative. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 16:30, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You mean for cycles 1 (1755-1766), 3-9 (1775-1855), 11 (1867-1878), and 16-18 (1923-1954)? Better images for those would be good, and they should exist. There should be images of the solar-related events discussed in the articles too. I'd also like to see a small navigation template that can go at the top right, showing start and end month and linking to the previous and next cycle, as well as a plot for solar cycle 4, illustrating the 2-cycle hypothesis. -- 101.117.90.93 (talk) 23:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all of your work on these articles. ‑Scottywong| talk _ 02:37, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to help out! -- 101.117.58.68 (talk) 02:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on an infobox here, input and suggestions are always welcome.Primefac (talk) 12:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Does that mean you are withdrawing your nomination? -- 101.117.108.126 (talk) 00:59, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I still think the articles without extra information should be deleted/redirected to the list of solar cycles (e.g. adding the fact that William Herschel observed Solar cycle 3 doesn't improve it in my mind). However, an infobox will be useful for the pages that get kept.Primefac (talk) 10:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, the infobox would in general not link to the next/previous cycle, in which case I oppose the infobox. -- 101.117.108.96 (talk) 11:32, 15 August 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. policy based arguments stated he fails WP:BIO1E, while the keeps hardly gave anything policy based at all. Secret account 18:07, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hadar Goldin

[edit]
Hadar Goldin (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)

Wikipedia is not a newspaper WP:NOTNEWS, subject also fails per WP:BLP1E. See also: Oron Shaul - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:43, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy Keep - Otherstuffexists is not a reason for deletion (per Oron Shaul comment). This persons kidnapping will have huge implications both in this conflict and politically. Both US president Obama and the UN has made comments about Goldin. --BabbaQ (talk) 22:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep is not a appropriate !vote anymore so I have changed it.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also Goldin does not fail WP:BLP1E he might by this moment fail point 1. But point 2 and 3 is just pure speculation from your side as this is the early hours of this story. And considering that his kidnapping is what every single news source in the world is covering, WP:BLP1E is not failed here.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:50, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article is not written as a news story. I would disagree that it fails BLP1E(especially the second criterion). I think the nomination was a bit premature. 331dot (talk) 22:54, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Even though I don't feel it necessary, given my clear statement about what I have done on this page, I am striking the above comment in favor of my comment below. 331dot (talk) 22:58, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • So did the killing of 2 other IDF troops. This article I feel is a case of WP:TOOSOON, a rushed decision was made to make the article without looking to see what notability the subject has. Its a war, people are going to die and get captured in wars. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
you haven't addressed how notability is met. LibStar (talk) 14:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a reason why here on Wikipedia we do not make articles for every single thing that has been featured in the news. We are an encyclopedia not a newspaper or as someone else put it not CNN. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's an event in a war which already has it's own entry. The event may be significant somewhat; the person is not. I wouldn't even consider the event is significant enough to have its own page, let alone the person. Hence why I suggested a merge. That's not to be insensitive to a person who has died in war but this is an encyclopaedia, not an obituaries page.58.167.32.96 (talk) 03:34, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • My vote was not a duplicate vote(and also not a vote) as the circumstances changed since my initial opinion(when he was thought to be a POW); I wished to state that I still want to keep based on the new circumstances. 331dot (talk) 10:07, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If that was your intention, all you had to do was add a comment to your original !vote, not add a further !vote. WWGB (talk) 11:51, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that doing so would be considered an attempt at rewriting history, and as I said I was clarifying that I still held my opinion given the new circumstances which does not render my previous opinion invalid or duplicate it. But, I accept your word that I might have approached this better. 331dot (talk) 22:50, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Removed duplicate vote, again, and don't claim it wasn't made to look like a vote, it clearly is posing as one.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was not a vote, as I clearly stated, no matter what it might "look like" to you. I don't appreciate motives and explanations being ascribed to me that I did not have and you cannot prove I had. 331dot (talk) 22:50, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. Whatever you think you were doing, you were doing it in the wrong way, and people were telling you this. You weren't listening. There was no more good faith left to be assumed. Three users informed you that your placement and markup closely resembles a vote. Either you were being willfully obtuse or you are trying to game the system. Now you've struck through your original vote in favor of your second one, which proves what we said all along. Doesn't matter what you appreciate when you get caught.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 22:49, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you are ready to abandon assuming good faith based on one edit, that doesn't say much about you. As I said, I thought what I did was quite clear and I explained my reasoning. You are free to disagree or ask that I do something differently, but that doesn't mean I have nefarious motives. You are not inside my mind and cannot know my motives and reasons. I know what I did and was comfortable with it. If you do not believe me, there is nothing I can do. I'm not sure what I did to deserve your ire, but I hope you being "proven" correct was worth it. I didn't strike my comment for you, I did it to move on- which is what I will be doing now. 331dot (talk) 01:09, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Since I posted above, there has been considerable discussion of/ opinions that his death is related to the Hannibal Directive, which may be main thing making him notable. NY Times ref; Haaretz; Israel's I24news; IB Times; National Post. It definitely will have to be re-added to his article if it's kept and to the Hannibal Directive article. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:36, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Given others comments as well, changed to keep. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 11:09, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Per below the link to the Hannibal Directive is speculative as Hadar was never captured. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:14, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOHARM is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 14:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— 94.234.170.198 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • CommentSee WP:ONEEVENT. There is nothing to say about this person that cannot easily be contained in the article on "Protective Edge". The stuff to do with the Hannibal Directive is pretty speculative.TheLongTone (talk) 14:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He is notable as the person whose capture and death changed the war. The event is notable, but his participation in the event is also notable. He isn't the first person in a war to notably for dying. Archduke in Austria for WWI anyone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.195.193 (talk) 14:59, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rubbish example: Franz Ferdinand was already notable. Princip might be a better example if we're talking 1914, but he did something. Goldin is simply somebody that something happened to.TheLongTone (talk) 15:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • From whose point of view, he was NEVER captured and died along with two other IDF forces. Where is the notability? Are we going to make articles about every single IDF personal that dies and gets placed in the media as a result? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:10, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • He's the only one who was alleged kidnapped with lots of media stories on tha, and whether Israel would trade another 1000 prisoners to get him back. After it was announced he was dead, there were a number of stories about the Hannibal Directive being possibly the cause of his death. So he may be the only Israeli soldier who died so far whose name will be remembered. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:36, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And now it turns out the NY Times reported, and then censored per Israel's request[31], that the Hannibal Directive was used after his possible abduction, making him more newsworthy. (Which led to someone removing my original note in the article based on that report! But I found lots more other refs.) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That statement is an outright, direct, and disgraceful misrepresentation of the Huffington Post article linked above. The HuffPo article discusses the Times being asked to omit a biographical detail concerning Goldin and does not report as fact, but merely refers to unspecified speculation, that the other subject was discussed with Israeli officials. SPECIFICO talk 01:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously if someone was going to put this in the article they'd be careful to be a bit more precise, without engaging in obsfucating euphemisms, of course. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:58, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Clearly notably by any Wikipedia standards"? How? What makes him unique from all other casualties of war? And "many articles on the subject"... Wikipedia is not a database for every soldiers to ever die in a war. Mr. Sort It Out (talk) 11:28, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Even suspected kidnappings can be notable. He isn't an ordinary casualty. There was significant worldwide coverage of this soldier, indicating some level of notability for a period of time. 331dot (talk) 11:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete I'm sorry but we can't have article about every soldier to ever day in any war. At the end of the day, this is just another casualty of war. If he would be kidnapped, yes, it would make it "unique" (like Gilad Shalit), but since it wasn't... It's obvious it should be deleted. Mr. Sort It Out (talk) 11:26, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - I !voted Speedy keep above but as that is not a appropriate vote anymore and as things have changed since I have now changed it to Strong Keep. Considering his impact on the war in the early days of August with Israel escalating the violence because of the actions against him. He was the center of news reports for days and are still mentioned. He is not "another soldier", he has impacted the war. He is within the scope of WP:GNG. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1 does does not apply to Hadar. Also WP:TOOSOON does not apply per extensive coverage since this happened and his impact on this war/dispute.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: His life was not notable, and neither was his death (one of over 60 IDF casualties in the 2014 Gaza war). The fact that his death was initially thought to have been a kidnapping, and caused a 72 hour cease-fire to collapse after only 90 minutes, does not make his life or death notable. Yonideworst (talk) 16:24, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why? For someone who is not notable, he got extensive news coverage and his suspected kidnapping altered the course of the conflict. 331dot (talk) 16:39, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
He didn't get any coverage. It was his suspected abduction that got coverage, and within a day it turned out that he was not abducted. Just because there was an error in the reporting, does not make his life or death notable. Yonideworst (talk) 17:05, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
His story was the reason to the escalation of violence from 1 August and onwards in this conflict. With more rocket fire from israel into Gaza and ground troops etc. His death was reported on by every major news source worldwide. Sorry but in this case your reasoning for deletion is weak.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:39, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:ONEEVENT. His death is a part of a bigger story on which there is already an article. The events of his death make more sense in the context provided by that article.TheLongTone (talk) 19:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:109PAPERS. Yonideworst (talk) 20:09, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know that notability will be temporary here? 331dot (talk) 20:32, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Very simple. Notability was achieved thanks to a mistake -- the very definition of temporary. Once the mistake was fixed, the notability vanished. Yonideworst (talk) 20:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So mistakes can't be notable after they occur? 331dot (talk) 21:05, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would have to say that since the mistake was fixed within a day, "notability" became temporary. Had the mistake langished for decades before being discovered, then it would have been a different story. Yonideworst (talk) 21:08, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to closing user: May I suggest that after this AfD is closed that the articles name is changed to Death of Hadar Goldin. As it has been established by both those !voting Keep and Delete that it was the events surrounding his death that was notable. His death is was made the war escalate and the world press reporting on this story even more. --BabbaQ (talk) 19:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're assuming the AFD will close as a keep. I would not support creating an article to Death of Hadar Goldin, as even that's not sufficiently notable for an article (see WP:109PAPERS). It could be a section within the 2014 Gaza War, that's as much notability as I think this topic deserves. Yonideworst (talk) 20:09, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed you cant assume this will be kept just as I cant assume it will be deleted. Im sorry but his life is not notable, this is why we have WP:ONEEVENT, the ceasefire being broken because IDF personal were killed I think we can all agree on is notable enough to be in the article, think bigger picture here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you both so certain it should be deleted? You give no reason beyond personal opinions with no basis in guidelines. Also it appears desperate to jump at every opportunity to state how unnotable this person is. While all facts points to the opposit. When closed this article should be renamed.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:42, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AGF please, we and plenty of others here have correctly cited the guidelines, sorry if the facts ring true but he was killed along with 2 other IDF, it made the news from his possible abduction (WP:NOTNEWS) and nothing more. Are you prepared to show some sources that Hadar himself directly impacted the war here? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:49, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What does WP:AGF have to do with this? I could say the same thing to you. What is up with this combative behavior. I have already stated above at my Keep reasoning why NOTNEWS does simply not apply. It is difference of opinions. I state it again, when the article is Kept as it should be considering the guidelines concernings Biographies of notable people the article should be renamed to reflect the Death of....--BabbaQ (talk) 10:04, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • fyi So, within only the past 24 hrs (NewsGoogle time-limited search), there's an whole article in the The New Yorker : Hadar Goldin and the Hannibal Directive. And there are new articles - today - focused in whole or part on Goldin in tens of news outlets in many languages ranging from Argentina Página/12 to the German tabloid Bild to major Israeli and Jewish papers both left Haaretz, The Jewish Daily Forward and right Algemeiner Journal, Arutz Shevaand anti-Isreal websites including Electronic Intifada dozens of new stories, not even counting the many news outlets that refer to the incident/man, but not by name "alleged kidnapping of an Israeli officer..." and I only News-googled in the Latin alphabet. Goldin'a name is attached to not 1 not 2 but 3 major issues/incidents in this war. 1) the erroneous belief that Goldin had been kidnapped, and its consequences to the course of the war. 2) the use of tunnels as attack and kidnap conduits and 3) the Hannibal Directive. Frankly, although I can see many reasons why Israel's defenders might not like this article and might want to take it down, and many reasons why Israel enemies might not like this article and might want to take it down, it is plain that the name is attached to the incident and people will expect to be able to find him on Wikipedia.ShulMaven (talk) 14:11, 7 August 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, NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 07:54, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep as Death of Hadar Goldin. I think there's no doubt anymore about the availability of in-depth, sustained coverage of this event. There's also a strong case for the event as a catalyst for "something else of lasting significance" (per WP:EFFECT) in that his death and perceived kidnapping resulted in scores and perhaps over a hundred Palestinian deaths in the context of the Israeli military response. (See Haaretz: "Dozens of innocents killed in IDF's 'Hannibal' protocol". NY Times: "Brig. Gen. Michael Edelstein, the commander of the Gaza division, said Thursday in a telephone briefing that most of the casualties in Rafah had occurred in the first hours after Hamas fighters “tried to kidnap our officer and bring him into civilian places." in "Israeli Procedure Reignites Old Debate")--Carwil (talk) 17:06, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that "Death of Hadar Goldin" more appropriate and in line with many articles focusing on individual's deaths when they have some larger import. I guess technically we should do a move discussion on the talk page. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I suggested the same above. And I agree that it should be moved to Death of... Right now if possible. Or straight after closure of the AfD.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:42, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Death of Hadar Goldin can be covered with a section is already covered with 3 four sentences in the article Hannibal Directive. It'sHis death is simply not notable enough nor significant enough to have its own rightarticle. It appears that having an article for him (or his death) would be a violation of WP:NOTMEMORIAL Yonideworst (talk) 21:49, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I seriously doubt this article was created and edited mostly by "friends, relatives, acquaintances" per the wording of WP:NOTMEMORIAL, so it is hardly at issue here. -- Kendrick7talk 03:46, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to quote the policy, quote the full context: "Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements" (underline added for emphasis). It doesn't matter who wrote the article. Keeping the article would seem to be a memorial for a dead IDF soldier, because neither his life nor his death were notable. Just because his death was mentioned by 109 newspapers on one day, does not make his death notable. Yonideworst (talk) 17:17, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The distinction between Hadar Goldin and Death of Hadar Goldin should address the WP:MEMORIAL concerns. This is not an article to remember him by, it's an article to address the cause and consequences of his death, which are important enough to make that death notable. It allows for description of at least three facts about the attack that led to his death about which which their are both multiple sources of information and relevant broader effects: When and where did the attack occur? (and therefore its role in breaking a much larger ceasefire) What was the Israeli military response to his death? (and its impact on Gazans, and the course of the 2014 Gaza conflict) What are the implications of the use of the Hannibal directive in this case to the visibility and level of political will to continue it? Now, these issues could be discussed on the other, separate pages, but they are somewhat overlapping and made clearer by being addressed in a single separate page. That is, detail might be too much for either other page, but perfectly relevant to the notable event of Goldin's death.--Carwil (talk) 16:46, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is against WP:ONEEVENT and WP:MEMORIAL, where are the sources that link his death to the war changing course? The notability is with the 'Hannibal' protocol's decision and not with the person. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you do not want to see that he has been part of changing the wars course then what is the point in trying to prove the obvious too you. Clearly ONEEVENT and MEMORIAL is not an issue anymore. --BabbaQ (talk) 19:56, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See for yourself Hannibal Directive#Incidents where the directive was invoked we do NOT have articles for every person that was killed with the Hannibal Directive being activated. I am asking for sources showing how his death direrctly changed the course of the war. This sentence right here: "Israel cited the kidnapping as one of several Hamas breaches of the ceasefire" in the article says that it was one of several reasons and not a direct result of anything. Its a war people die in a war, media covers it and things happen as a result. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:14, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As depressing as it sounds, I guess it comes down to whether you regard the difference between a ceasefire and seventy to one hundred thirty dead Palestinians (per the New York Times and Haaretz, respectively) to be a notable event (or as "changing the course of the war"). It seems comparable to the Battle of Shuja'iyya (2014) to the north. I would also feel comfortable with a similar article on the Goldin firefight, presumed abduction, and military response as a whole, but for now reliable sources seem to treat Goldin as notable, rather than what Haaretz called "Black Friday".--Carwil (talk) 02:24, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct. The collapse of a specific cease fire (or your wording of "difference between a ceasefire and seventy to one hundred thirty dead Palestinians") is definitely not notable outside of the 2014 Gaza war article, as cease fires have come and gone in this conflict. Yonideworst (talk) 01:32, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We can not compare this story to the thousands of Palestinians dead in this conflict. We can not say, Hadar is not notable because that would be unfair to the thousands of Palestinians who has been killed. I mean that reasoning has no basis in any Wikipedia guideline. What you are all doing is saying that Hadar had no impact on this conflict while every source points to the complete opposit. His suspected kidnapping definitely impacted the conflict and the escalation of violence in the hours after as pointed out by several sources. Reasonings for deletion based on emotions are not as strong as reasonings based on Wikipedia guidelines like mine concerning this particular article for example. Sorry, just being honest guys. --BabbaQ (talk) 16:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep But as "Death of Hadar Goldin". This was a significant event in the conflict, and as such should be recorded in as much detail as possible. Having an article for the individual is unnecessary. O99o99 (talk) 17:08, 15 August 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 per WP:SNOW. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:39, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Piccici De Rothschild

[edit]
Piccici De Rothschild (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)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 8 August 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. Tone 12:12, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Electricity Generation from Underutilized Energy

[edit]
Electricity Generation from Underutilized Energy (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 appears to be a personal essay based on original research. Fails WP:GNG and goes against WP:NOT#ESSAY. Tchaliburton (talk) 05:25, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I started the clean-up. Can anybody help? Bearian (talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 12:11, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Afroz Khan

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

The subject has won some minor beauty pageant titles, but has not received the level of coverage that would establish that she is notable enough for an article. Diannaa (talk) 04:19, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 08:40, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The article was on my to-do list today to figure out if she is eligible for inclusion for concerns mentioned above in the afd rationale. Apparently created by the subject itself, User:Model Afroz Khan -- it does not appear to have significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Nothing helpful could be found on Google news and books. The nature of awards she did receive do not appear to be well known or significant or such.. that would make her reach wp:anybio standard. I believe that there's WP:ANYBIO, because it is presumed that any person who win a major award or nominated for the same multiple times, is subjected to wide coverage in the media houses therefore satisfying Wikipedia general notability guideline. It does not appear to be that case. The article fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, WP:GNG, WP:NMODEL and qualifies for deletion. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 09:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 8 August 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. Secret account 18:10, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Executive Centre

[edit]
The Executive Centre (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; fails Wikipedia:CORP. Cannot find reliable third-party sources. Article is wholly promotional in tone. Article created and almost solely edited by single-purpose account whose 47 edits all serve to promote this non-notable company. The page was also previously speedily deleted (in 2006) for advertising. Citobun (talk) 10:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable serviced office provider. "See alsos" and "References" are either press release reprints, paid advertising or promotional hype and in no way independent.  Philg88 ♦talk 06:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Working on making the page unbiased. Certainly a notable serviced office provider. 20 year history and annual revenues exceeding US$125 Million. Asia's 2nd largest provider, 3rd largest globally, and recently acquired by CVC Capital Partners, a leading PE firm. - Tecmkt
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 03:58, 8 August 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. Tone 12:12, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Akhbar Ka Ek Panna

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

Non-notable film. The listed film festivals appear to be something of a hoax (see this posting), and the film and its actors and director are not otherwise notable. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:42, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:INDAFD: Akhbar Ka Ek Panna Varadraj Swami Shahzad Ahmad Rashika Agashe
  • Comment Of the links provided by @MichaelQSchmidt:, only the search results for Rasika Agashe (which was substituted by the search engine for the actual name in the article: Rashika Agashe) showed any signs of notability: she appears to be a known actress / director in Indian theater and film. Her involvement does not really bolster this film's notability significantly. The search for the film title itself shows that it was one of 200 films screened at a film festival in Thiruvananthapuram. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:43, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fake festivals notwithstanding, Wikipedia requires coverage in independent sources. This film appears lacking, giving us a fail of WP:NFF. Schmidt, Michael Q. 23:31, 3 August 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 03:55, 8 August 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. Tone 12:12, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shades (2010 film)

[edit]
Shades (2010 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable film. The listed film festivals appear to be something of a hoax (see this posting), and the film and its actors and director are not otherwise notable. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:44, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • What a true shame that unscrupulous individuals have created fake festival sites in order to rip off filmmakers. Of course, Shades could be dozens of festivals without such screenings being notable. It's coverage we require. Schmidt, Michael Q. 04:54, 1 August 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 03:55, 8 August 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. Secret account 18:11, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New York Short Film Festival

[edit]
New York Short Film Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable film festival. There are several short film festivals based in New York (both the City and the State). This particular one does not appear to be notable. No reliable sources can be found that mention it. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 1 August 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 03:54, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. This virtual film festival never took off, generating no mention that Ican find in a reliable source since the article was created in 2009. The parent group's web page (Ref 2) hasn't been updated since 2012. Even an ardent eventualist would likely admit that it is time for this article to be removed. It may someday deserve a short mention as an early try if virtual film festivals ever become popular and notable but it's not suitable for an article. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) Join WER 16:01, 12 August 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. Daniel (talk) 01:25, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gingerdead Man vs. Evil Bong

[edit]
Gingerdead Man vs. Evil Bong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Fails WP:MOVIE. Tchaliburton (talk) 15:41, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
IE: Dread Central Missoula Independent
  • No, of course they're not. But all they did was post trailers and press releases. The Missoula Independent link looks like a review, but that's just one review. The other one is a self-published blog. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:41, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I avoided any that were only reprints of press releases. Reliable sources are allowed to include or quote press releases, as long as they offer additional vetted information about a film. And even if some speak about the film's trailer, they are speaking about aspects of the film's production, so WP:NF is met. Schmidt, Michael Q. 03:49, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, NF asks for multiple full-length reviews from nationally known critics. In my opinion, a comment about how the trailer is hilariously awful doesn't really count toward that. Release dates and such are routine coverage – these sites give this default amount of publicity to every single horror film ever made. The true test of notability is whether they bother to write a review. Unfortunately, they frequently don't. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:01, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, you are making an error. WP:NF's WP:NF#Other evidence of notability is where we may look if or when WP:GNG is failed. When we have plenty of independent reliable sources offering more-than-trivial information about the film's production, WP:GNG is met, notability is established, and we do not have to look further. And that reliable film sources give information about a film's release is what they do... it's a cumulative collection of sourced information that creates a multi-sourced article under WP:V that informs our readers. But heck... I found a quite decent review in a very brief search, and found an apparent cult following of this genre film and its genre characters in genre sources. I wonder what else might be found with just a little due diligence. Schmidt, Michael Q. 18:42, 4 August 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 03:54, 8 August 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. I didn't use this fact in determining consensus, but note: Saatchi is pretty much open for artists to sell work through (http://www.saatchiart.com/upload/why) ... I let my own listing there go fallow a couple years back. j⚛e deckertalk 13:57, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Owen

[edit]
Jessica Owen (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 artist. Philafrenzy (talk) 17:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An advert or non notably biography. Szzuk (talk) 16:08, 3 August 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 03:53, 8 August 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. This article can be merged as mentioned below, but a separate merge discussion would probably be in order. Go Phightins! 15:53, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of HSUPA networks

[edit]
List of HSUPA networks (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 list is incomplete, there are A LOT OF missing sources and we will never be able to cover all networks worldwide (if only because of missing sources!). HSUPA has de-facto become a standard technology in deployed UMTS networks, which already have a seperate list. For this reason: Why should we maintain multiple lists for every "add-on-technology" to a common and widely adopted mobile standard?!? Instead we should focus on a few milestones (e.g. first launches, special networks and operators that were the first to launch new technologies. This should happen in the main article HSUPA. Lists only make sense if there is the possibility to have a complete coverage and people that are interested and able to maintain them an a regular basis. Doesn't seem to meet WP:NOTABILITY requirements. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 20:15, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be even easier to merge both lists you mentioned above into List of UMTS networks by adding two seperate columns. This means two articles less without loss of information. All content without a source should be deleted after a set timeframe to give main editors the chance to improve the extended list and add sources. I suggest the timeframe to avoid keeping uncited content longterm. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 19:07, 7 August 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 03:53, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs additional sources, but it has some source to prove the information and notability. It is an incomplete article, but is notable. Frmorrison (talk) 13:45, 8 August 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) czar ♔ 15:19, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Isak Ssewankambo

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by an IP without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anwar El Ghazi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:07, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - Fail WP:NFOOTY as have not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subjects have garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Both are examples of WP:CRYSTAL, No problem with recreation of these very short article if they ever meet any of the NFOOTY criteria. Fenix down (talk) 06:41, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep both - have now both just scraped over the NFOOTY line. A prime example of why editors should be actively discouraged from creating articles for people who do not currently meet notability guidelines, as we end up with this needless back and forth. Fenix down (talk) 09:48, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - could someone please add a source to indicate an NFOOTY pass as suggested above, and no it is not pointless to remove articles on non-notable individuals. We don't make articles on people in anticipation of notability, only when they are notable. That is a fundamental tenet of GNG and the reason for the existence of CRYSTAL. Fenix down (talk) 06:37, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well the sources in the article demonstrate that he played in the Dutch Super Cup, which is played between the winner of the Dutch league and the winner of the Dutch Cup, both of which are used on the list of leagues WP:NFOOTY uses to establish notability. Surely playing in the Super Cup establishes notability? 86.211.94.178 (talk) 10:06, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any comment about the dutch super cup in the one source in the article for Ssewankambo. Can you please highight the specific part of the source text that says he played, please? Fenix down (talk) 11:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to Anwar El Ghazi. He played in the Dutch Super Cup. This is the source used for that in the article: [32] 86.211.94.178 (talk) 11:48, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that the Super Cup, like the Community Shield is basically a glorified pre-season friendly and so does not count towards NFOOTY.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 03:51, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - El-Ghazi is the very definition of someone who only just satisfies NFOOTY, but there does seem to be feeling that he is notable. Ssewankambo doesn't meet any notability criteria. Fenix down (talk) 07:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Isak Ssewankambo started for NAC in the Eredivisie last night, so this discussion is no longer relevant. 81.226.221.56 (talk) 23:06, 9 August 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 Kiruv Organisation#Yosef Mizrachi founder. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 15:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yosef Mizrachi

[edit]
Yosef Mizrachi (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 as far as I am able to determine. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:28, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 31 July 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 03:49, 8 August 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. Secret account 18:13, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Contemporary Art Platform

[edit]
Contemporary Art Platform (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)

New institution that just doesn't have significant coverage from reliable sources that I can find. The name is so generic that it makes searching a bit cumbersome, but I think the age is the problem. Not a museum, but a privately owned non-for-profit group. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:50, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 25 July 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, Dusti*Let's talk!* 01:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is not even a proper article. I know that some featured articles have started from a very humble beginning but the burden of convincing that there is some hope to expand the topic is on the writer. Fleet Command (talk) 07:36, 7 August 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 03:49, 8 August 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. for the 187th Assault Helicopter Company only. It is virtually an empty article anyway. The rest are no consensus. It is next to impossible to divine a consensus for disparate units of disparate notability and huge differences in the state of article development. I agree with 180.172.239.231 that this should have been speedy closed and nominated separately SpinningSpark 00:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

187th Assault Helicopter Company

[edit]
187th Assault Helicopter Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:MILUNIT. As small units, companies need to really distinguish themselves to merit standalone articles. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

119th Assault Helicopter Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
362nd Signal Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
642nd Engineer Support Company (ESC) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
911th Engineer Company (United States) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
57th Signal Company (United States) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bit more rummaging suggests 187th and 119th were both in 1st Aviation Brigade, if that's any help. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:08, 31 July 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 03:48, 8 August 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. Tone 12:13, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Falcon Lake incident

[edit]
Falcon Lake incident (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)

Following the logic of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coyame UFO incident, I argue that if the only sourcing is from a tabloid television show such as Unsolved Mysteries and in UFOlogy books written on the subject, the article fails WP:FRINGE inclusion criteria. WP:NFRINGE and WP:FRIND require independent, reliable sources that discuss the event independent of the promotion of the UFO true believer agenda. Such sources have not been forthcoming in our discussion at WP:FTN. The sole source for the article is a UFOlogy tour-de-force that is simply promoting without discrimination an absurdly variated and large number of incidents as worthy solely for their UFO-content -- WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:SOAP comes into play here. This just happens, then, to be another example of a non-notable UFO incident. jps (talk) 03:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Addressed by non-fringe sources here: [35][36]. Described as "Canada's most famous UFO encounter" in the latter CBC article. Is the inspiration for an independent movie: [37]. Also addressed in mainstream sources here: [38][39]. There seems to be plenty of scope for a balanced article on this reported "encounter". JulesH (talk) 21:46, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. The mentions in non-fringe sources are news of the weird stories for entertainment purposes only. The film appears not to be notable in itself, and does not lend much to the notability of the incident. My own search turned up nothing of substance. Sorry, there's just not enough here to meet our notability guidelines. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:07, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No extensive coverage in independent nor reliable sources. Fails WP:EVENT. CesareAngelotti (talk) 22:54, 12 August 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) .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:02, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spencer Carbery

[edit]
Spencer Carbery (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 hockey player who fails WP:NHOCKEY. No Evidence he passes WP:GNG. Coycan (talk) 18:42, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 24 July 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, j⚛e deckertalk 02:40, 31 July 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 03:47, 8 August 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. Daniel (talk) 01:26, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

March of Ukrainian Nationalists

[edit]
March of Ukrainian Nationalists (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 anthem of a political party with no soruces outsite the parties own site does not seem to pass WP:GNG Gaijin42 (talk) 02:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 13:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 13:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. Wow. I knew I should have put an {{increation}} template. Otherwise some leftist would flag it for deletion. Your reasons for deletion shows that you really don't know anything about this topic.

  1. First of all, this is not just the song of a "political party". This is the song of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists which was a political movement that lead to the creation of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army, a major of part of the liberation movement in western Ukraine during the first half of the 19th century.
  2. Secondly, please show me which of the links is the website of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists. This Organization hasn't existed for over half a century and they do not have a website.
  3. Finally, how did you manage to analyze the sources without being a Ukrainian speaker? Because your conclusion was entirely wrong. It looks you nominated this page for deletion because like you don't like the content of this page, not because there is a legitimate reason to delete it.--BoguSlav 15:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I came across the site in new page patrol, had nothing to do with your template. "leftist" is a personal attack, which I suggest you retract per WP:NPA. Its pretty simple, in my opinion you have not demonstrated that this song meets WP:GNG or WP:NSONG. Show that it does, preferably by finding multiple books/magazines/articles etc discussing it in depth. The second ref in the article appears to be a simple lyrics listing with no commentary. The first is a general source about all ukranian nationalist symbols that has a brief mention of the song.Gaijin42 (talk) 16:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And still, your analysis is wrong. The first source has a very large chunk discussing the anthem of the OUN/UPA, not just "a brief mention". The Second source does have a commentary of below the song, discussing more about the life of the author of the song, Oles Babiy. The Ukrainian liberation movement was an important uprising in western Ukraine, and the anthem of the Insurgent Army was commonly performed and known by supporters of the movement during those times. The Ukrainian Insurgent Army is still a huge topic of debate today, with the Kremlin currently accusing the Ukrainian government of sympathizing with it, while in western Ukraine the Ukrainian Insurgent Army is a source of inspiration. This anthem is still well known today, especially among supporters of OUN/UPA. For example, Ukrainian political parties, including parliamentary party VO Svoboda, make use of this song, along with the Ukrainian national anthem.[40] A historical book about the Ukrainian Insurgent Army used the name of this song as the title of the book.[41] People who honor the memory of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army always perform this song. This includes, for example, major choirs in the city of Lviv.[42]
This song not only known as the anthem of OUN/UPA, but it is also commonly accepted by many Ukrainians to just be a patriotic song, regardless of the origins. For example, it has been in CD's as a patriotic Ukrainian song. [43] Others refer to it as Ukrainian folk song [44].
All of this makes me inclined to think that you either personally don't want this article on Wikipedia, or you are not very thorough in your research. --BoguSlav 17:39, 23 July 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The argument above comes across as something of a dialogue of the deaf. It would have been better if the nominator had had the knowledge of Ukrainian politics to realise that the sites being used for citations probably had no direct connection with the OUN, whose historical influence goes far wider what is now left of the organisation. And the nominator needs to realise that it is quite possible for non-Ukrainians to be ignorant of Ukrainian history and politics, but still object to articles like this, not for political reasons but because they don't seem to conform to the sourcing requirements expected on English Wikipedia these days. In my own opinion, there are probably sufficient reliable sources - in English Wikipedia terms - available (though probably mostly in Ukrainian) to establish the song as notable, if probably still controversial, but only one of the sources currently in the article (the one from The Day) is likely to meet English Wikipedia reliability standards. Admittedly, it is always difficult to judge sources in a language one does not know, but the various Ukrainian websites from which the citations are drawn all look like ones whose equivalents in English would not normally be regarded as reliable. What would be better are books or articles (the more academic the better, though reputable newspapers should do) that discuss the song or its history in some detail. PWilkinson (talk) 20:24, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this assessment. The first line, in Ukrainian, does return a couple of dozen hits from Google Scholar, but it's brutal going for someone (such as myself) who does not read the language at all--Google Translate's Ukrainian-to-English is pretty horrible. Anyone literate in Ukrainian want to have a look? --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 23:37, 2 August 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 03:47, 8 August 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. Daniel (talk) 01:26, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chrome Hearts

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

Doesn't seem to pass WP:N. Only source is a page in a directory and even the company's own website doesn't have any information about the products. Laurent (talk) 05:25, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 13:47, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 13:47, 23 July 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:21, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be deleted, since this brand is famous in the world, and very popular in east Asia. Fashionster (talk) 16:02, 3 August 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 03:46, 8 August 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. In some respects, WP:HEY may apply, as the promotional tone, etc. was removed. There was no consensus regarding notability, and in the future, I would encourage those editors interested in the topic to have a discussion as to notability, but this AfD has no indication thereof, or contraindication thereof, and as such, as there are no other factors to support its deletion, the default is to keep. Editors are encouraged to discuss items of this nature in a collegial manner at an appropriate juncture. Thanks to all who participated. God bless. Go Phightins! 15:56, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anomaly (Lecrae album)

[edit]
Anomaly (Lecrae album) (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 encyclopedic notability. Subject fails NALBUM. Sources are promotional and or trivial. TOOSOON also would appear to apply. Article has a promotional tone to it. The only contributing editors are two SPAs and an IP. A Google did not yield enough to ring the notability bell. PROD was removed. Ad Orientem (talk) 12:19, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • After a look at the new sources I am sorry to say I still don't think they meet GNG and NALBUM. Most provide coverage that is run of the mill, often doing little more than confirming that the album is in fact coming. Others are from non-RS sources (YouTube - Facebook), and still others are promotional. There is just not enough here. I would be OK with a redirect to Lecrae without any prejudice against recreation if and when the album gains the attention necessary to ring the notability bell. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:24, 24 July 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:39, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Procedural keep for starters, as the article's tone and which users have edited it have no bearing whatsoever on notability. In any case, the sources are sufficient to eke by, especially given the nearness of the album's release, at which time, as Sofffie7 notes, there won't be an issue. Joefromrandb (talk) 12:21, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agreeing with the above, once the album's released there will be no shortage of citable sources, especially if the first single ("Nuthin'") is any indication. Deleting it now will just mean more work for someone else to rebuild it in September. What's on the page now is useful information; I really question what we stand to gain by deleting it. But then again, I also question whether this discussion would be happening if the album was by a mainstream rapper like Jay-Z or Kanye. The system didn't plan for this. Alphateam7911 (talk) 16:27, 1 August 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, NorthAmerica

1000 03:45, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The album cover, track list, and release date are all released, and there is significant, non-trivial coverage of this album in multiple, reliable third-party sources. The article does need to get cleaned up for sure, though.--¿3family6 contribs 21:50, 12 August 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. Monty845 00:14, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Willo Steakhouse

[edit]
The Willo Steakhouse (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)

And another...I went to this place when on a vacation with my dad in Nevada City. I decided to write an article about it. I'm being told via the talk page it fails notability, though no one would nominate it. And, a user who had one problem with a protection move I did on an Israel related article happened to stumble across it and gut a large part of it as promotional (though I base my work after good articles in Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink).

So, I figure I will let all of you decide if this is notable or not (aka i wasted my time :) )

I think it passes WP:GNG - multiple reliable sources. but, ya'll might think otherwise...

Thanks! Missvain -- Yup, this is SarahStierch's original username! 05:08, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep passes notability with references. i found an image of the sign at the library of congress, though that doesnt prove notability (my copyright tag is all messed up, but it IS copyright free)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:13, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undecided - but please see my comments on the talk page for this article - particularly the idea that there is a large number of restaurants in the USA (and I guess most of them must have some press comment, even if in a local paper - so many would pass the simple notability test). Should Wikipedia have thousands of pages about restaurants, or should there be a higher standard of notability for this sort of subject?ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 12:08, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: While the administrator who wrote the original puff-piece of an article couldn't have done much worse a job if she was a paid marketing writer (probably worth discussing elsewhere), I believe the business is notable per WP:CORP as there are plenty of references to it including content from the Library of Congress. This nomination appears to be a passive-aggressive response to criticism of the article and should be closed quickly. The Dissident Aggressor 13:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I should have disclosed that I contributed a significant amount of cleanup to this article. The Dissident Aggressor 17:42, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is this basically WP:IAR, WP:CORP need not apply? The Dissident Aggressor 17:44, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage must be more than routine. This coverage is not. Restaurants are routinely reviewed in the media. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 09:35, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:15, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. I commented above with an objection about this AFD, but the comment was moved to the Talk page of this AFD. I am okay with that. I do object to "fake AFD"s. Glancing at the article, not that i care much, it seems to have a few reviews, so weak keep i guess, i dunno. --doncram 16:03, 4 August 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 03:42, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's just a run-of-the-mill restaurant with run-of-the-mill coverage from very minor media sources (hyperlocal or "alternative" or both). I took at look at the article's history to see what it was like before recent deletions, but the same comment applies. I know dozens of restaurants that I enjoy, that have interesting histories and a strong local following - but I don't write articles about them, and wouldn't unless they clearly met GNG. In the case of a restaurant, store, hotel, or similar one-of-a-kind local establishment, my GNG criterion is significant coverage from at least two publications of at least regional impact. I'm not seeing that here. --MelanieN (talk) 00:11, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Looking through the non-trivial references in the article, we have a local newspaper (#1), two "alternative" newspapers in major cities (#2 and #3), and a regional magazine (#5). The restaurant also won an award (and got more significant coverage) in Sacramento magazine (another regional source) and was featured in a Via magazine article, which covers a multi-state region. This was less coverage than I'd like to see (particularly given that no regional travel books seem to mention it), and whether that meets the GNG is probably a matter of interpretation. Three regional sources with significant coverage and a handful of local/alternative sources (some in the Bay Area, which doesn't include the restaurant) seems to pass "significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources", though, if perhaps barely. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 04:04, 9 August 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. Can be recreated later if multiple reliable third-party sources that meet WP:N are found and included. Daniel (talk) 01:28, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Borrowed Time (Doctor Who)

[edit]
Borrowed Time (Doctor Who) (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 indication of notability, no references. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 12:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 31 July 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 03:32, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, no prejudice against recreation if multiple reliable sources have been found--Ymblanter (talk) 07:16, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Arancibia

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:Notability (people). Created by WP:SPA and two other SPAs have edited it. Boleyn (talk) 12:24, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 1 August 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 03:30, 8 August 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:GNG, the delete arguments here correctly interpreted the various requirements of our general notability guideline, and in particular did not duck the question of editorial oversight/reliability. j⚛e deckertalk 15:23, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GoldBug (software)

[edit]
GoldBug (software) (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 of topic is not established – no significant coverage in independent secondary reliable sources. The article contains two reviews from German download sites, but both are too short to constitute significant coverage. My search for additional sources did not lead to anything I could use to establish notability of this subject. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 01:54, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. 01:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Dear Dimitri, please stopp spamming this article with your deletion tag. This article is written nice and has many references.

Next to

  • - the written whitepaper of the project and presentation there are the
  • - Heise DL portal writing about that app, also many other not mentioned here as well like e.g.
  • - the softpedia editors review

References in this article is furhter

  • - Appwikia with an own rating of this app
  • - Adhoc new portal
  • - The bulgarian Portal OSArena is writing
  • - D-Net is comparing GB network on the levelof the OTR network
  • - The Italian QOPP Portal is reportign in italian language
  • - Hackers sSecurity plog has written a very lon article with personal reommendation abut this tool
  • - The German Editor Jan Weller has written a long Article about it
  • - Download.net also writes about it.

Overall more than a dozen references.

Compare it to RetroShare, they have only the torrentfreak article announced, all the rest is linked to internal ressources of the own projectpage! please add a deletion tag there.

You seem to neglect the work people invested here.

You need to be more wise under the approach live and let live. If this find not an agreement, then the wikipedia admins get a notifiaction.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.19.119.80 (talk) 13:59, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these are simply unreliable sources. Softpedia only has one user-submitted review for GoldBug, Appwikia is a wiki, Adhoc reprints Heist.de's description, OSArena is basically Greek Slashdot and has no editorial oversight, ZDnet does barely mention GoldBug at all, qoop (which doesn't seem to be reliable source at all) reports GoldBug in 57 words, Hacker's Security blog has no editorial oversight, Jan Weller's review is short (197 words) and lacks depth, and Download.com only has publisher's description. No single source from this list is usable for establishing notability, and significant coverage in multiple independent secondary reliable sources is required. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 14:41, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@MarcoSU: For the sake of clarity, could you please identify whether you are the editors behind these IPs? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 14:50, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Dimitry, it makes no sense to talk with you as the deciding admin is not in depth in the content.

  • e.g. you say, that the ZD-Net autor is just memtioning the app. This is not true, he referrs the openssl for two networking apps, the one is the tor network and the other is the goldbug app network. The ZD-Author sees both on the same level and this has been written in the very established magazon ZD
  • as well the Editors with name writing a dedicated article about the tool are not considerd by you
  • there also bloggers with very high twitter followes writing a fully securtiy analysis about this tool
  • further there are platforms, rating this tool along detailed criteria.
  • It is not true, that Softpedia is having only userratings. There is the Author / Editor Andrea Matei - I checked that with softpedia - writing that article and she has also done the testings and the screenshot from the test. Softpedia is indeed one of the big portals doing these analyses, you see that as well within the screenshot copyrigth for the sofotpedia lab. Also the virus free certification has been done by this portal and editor.
  • your sentence "Security blog has no editorial oversight" is quite nonsense. You are an advocate. You want to dismiss a source, because it has no editorial structure at the beginning of the article? You neglect, that this article is written a whole page long about individual analyses about the tool.
  • you also say, you search for further references had would have not found one, as well this was not the truth as the added references for your satisfaction you comment on above, have been easily found. So please dont state, what is not the truth. For whatever reasons you do this.

You seem to have other reasons, starting a religious war about these tools. You already deleted other security tools and articles about secure messaging. The wikipedia is made for contributions, not for religious wars of users with a fixed idea who know the formal deletion processes better than those who want to construct.

The quality approach of this article is very good and the deletion process would stop users from adding or improving or translation content and making the wikipedia better. Just want to notify you, that this case has been brought up to the CEOs of the wikipedia. It is worth to review the advocates processes you run not in the sense of the qikipedia or for quality control, but for advocating your own goals for whatever tools you get paid or not paid for. Please learn from the approach "live and let live" to not be so harsh and consistent annoying. Otherwise this case has to be analysed in a wider forum and brought up to the discussion how wikipedia can be improved.

(I am a user and not the editor, but see this war you fight and ask me why?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.19.119.227 (talk) 15:01, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but accusing me of some kind of agenda won't protect this article, and attributing to me the statements I did not make won't either. The subject fails General notability guideline, and the "references" you added did not change anything in this regard. Instead of wasting your time on lengthy complaints you would better search for reliable sources if you really believe that this software is notable enough to be worth encyclopedic coverage. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 15:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dimitri you are the Creator of TOX https://github.com/czarkoff This is you acid motivaiton https://tox.im/ It must be brought up. sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.19.119.229 (talk) 16:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck pushing this version. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 19:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Hi there, Good to hear, that you found your peace with this edited version of users Zhaofeng Li and Revent. You are the Tox-Messenger Developer and tag the GoldBug-Messenger Wikipedia entry with a delete tag ?? unbelievable and you already removed Information about Secure Messaging from other wikipedia pages, this is really - to say it friendly: biased. No, it is annoying and not a friendly colleague behaviour. Even if you discover weaknesses in the article in your eyes, which are not there - at court it would be a golden rule to be neutral with your biased background. You are attacking. Speaks not for Tox-Messenger. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.19.119.231 (talk) 20:11, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for the sake of clarity: I submitted these 4 trivial bug fixes to Tox (pull requests #826 and #827 for toxcore and #121 and #122 for toxic). Obviously, I am not Tox developer. And so what? How exactly does this influence the notability of GoldBug? FWIW, even if I was a developer of Tox, what would that change in this discussion? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 20:32, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

|

Hi there, I am just stumbling over this silly discussion started by Dimitrij. Of course this good written expert article entry has to be kept!

  • (1) it is really a no go, that someone interested in other messenger tools and even working for one of them is providing a deletion tag. this is indeed attacking.
  • (2) In my eyes, the article does not need ANY references, as it is written by some experts an the new technology like the echo protocol or the new magnet uri standard or even the virtual email institutions or even the Adaptive Echo are absolutely innovative concepts, which have not been published in other scientific context, but have been described in wikipedia first. As the article is an expert article, no other citation is needed. This can be seen from technology knowledge view quite easily. All those not knowing the materia, need references of experts. Please don`t look at formal methods, but to the content. Notability is not defined by 11 versus 15 quotations.
  • (3) One other mentioned above, that Dimitrij is arguing very harsh. That´s true. I dont see any mal formatting nor any missing content nor any missing references in this article - no do I miss a missing integration in the wikipedia, the links to wiki-pages are quite good and when I read this article, I can understand it quite good and have many references as well to other wikipedia articles. This is the idea of the wikipedia, to weave it into the content. For me the article is very well done. Even IF there were some flaws, this should have been answered constructively and been improved, some wikipedia editors (maybe like Dimitrij ) delete due to thier learned methods instead of helping in a constructive way of create one reference and judgement by his own. This is so contentless and destuctive, what he does. Hopefully he has never an disabled child if we bring his behaviour to life. Thanks to all other editors in the history for improving this article (for the minor edits that haven been needed to make it a great collaborational edit). Dimitrij I see not among them.
  • (4) I looked up the criteria for software descriptions, and I find no point at all that justifies his hard judgment.
  • (5) As Dimitrij has set the tag and then voted as well for "Keep" and furthermore wished good luck after the articles has been revised by two wikipedia expert users if not even admins, I think no third admin should keep the deletion tag of this article now - but instead help to improve the article still if needed.
  • (6) If it comes for counting references, there are over a dozen
    • (A) I see many blogs reporting about it.
    • (B) I see some download portals, describing this new encryption tool in great detail
    • (C) There are some dedicated reports describing ONLY this tool . Several evaluations, so what do you want more?
    • (D) There are even two or more dedicated evaluation tests with criteria to rate this tool - these are criteria, which other tools have gone through as well, so it is quite common and tested.
    • (E) The Project has a very detailed documentation on the own website, this is first class referencing, I dont know, why any second paraphrasing platform could be better
    • (F) There are well established Magazines discussion this tool on the level of other tools like Tor etc.: e.g. ZD-Net, Security-Blog.
    • (G) The references even have several languages and the recipation of this tool is a global one.
    • (H) And again, references are absolutely not my topic, in case it is about judging the article.
  • (7) I think it should be kept to have the chance to keep the rising users already have translated the first portion of this article into different languages. His has started and will be continued.
  • (8) When I saw the twitter message, even now I still cannot believe it: a Messenger Developer and Entrepreneur is deleting the article about another Messenger. This is common behaviourism in the business world, fighting each other and grabbing or better closing the market. Wikipedia has an absolutely different approach. And the Open Source community too. I vote for the exclusion of Dimitrij out of the wikipedia, no - that would not be a better mean: a better solution is the education of him and not to send/chase him from court in the first step. But there should be a warning letter from wikipedia explaining the values of the wikipedia and its mission and vision (which is of course quality control, but not done over a deletion tag but with own helpings to get the standards we like). His harsh NO-GO Policy is not a welcoming attitude to new wikipedians and their articles, especially if it should be true, that in other messenger pages he as well has deleted newcomers or innovative content links. I personally feel, I would not like to have persons with this attitude met in the age of World War II. Here is something going wrong and the wikipedia need to take care for this. This discussion is more an ethical and compliance case of the wikipedia than a proposed one missing reference from an even bigger magazin.

Good Luck with your decisions, this are my two cents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.19.121.211 (talk) 07:36, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Looking at the article, and not the above discussion, I see this as a promotional article about whst is at the most barely notable software: as for the promotional aspects: going into great detail about even minor functions (which will be relevant to some potential users, but not to the general reader) , an explanation of how it would have done better than other software in dealing with a recent problem, comparing it with other software, in a manner to make clear its advantages over them , using the second person sometimes. retelling the Poe story from which the name is derived, making multiple cute references to folk tales, What I do not see is information about how widely it is used, or any other indication of notability. For proving notability, I see only one potentially adequate source. the Hacker10 review. (I did read the other ones with some help from Google translate--they are not substantial evaluative reviews) However, I do not know the authority of the reviewer or the site. It's not enough to overcome the gross problems with the article. DGG ( talk ) 18:29, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm not seeing reliable independent sources here. Download sites, blogs, passing mention, and quotations from insiders do not count. Goldbug claims to be a frontend GUI for spot on, but even spot on does not have an article here, so Goldbug could not redirect to it. The project may be meritorious in many ways, but it does not meet WP's notability requirements yet. Glrx (talk) 18:52, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to secure messaging as umbrella article. Strawberrie Fields (talk) 20:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the love of information, please do not remove this article! Also, the original list of messengers was very informative. The abridged form is a simple mouthpiece. I have been following this discussion with fascination. I have tried to argue the importance of representation in a similar discussion. Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_secure_messengers&redirect=no.

I believe, and correct me if I’m wrong, that the intent of Wikipedia is to offer verifiable information. I’ll not bother myself with the precise details of what that entails. I see this notion of notability hurled about. Please understand that the definition of notability, in some circumstances, fosters representation for some while restricting it for others. I see a questionable application of a loosely-interpreted guideline. Perhaps the lawyers and the linguists can establish a precise definition of notability with respect to Wikipedia articles that are clearly more notable. Why has the existence of this article drawn harsh criticism and promoted the animated dismissal of the subject matter? It has come to a vote too! Lovely.

Perhaps the intent of the author is to promote ideas. One form of promoting ideas is to model them, that is, some ideas are clearer when they are represented by an implementation. Models provide, excuse me, notability about the represented ideas. What we have here is a model and the ideas that accompany it. Perhaps there is also the intent that this self-promotion will initiate the study of other ideas. Knowledge, fortunately, promotes itself. However, a medium helps. (Thank you Wikipedia!) Some wish to dismiss both the ideas and the model because, excuse me yet again, neither are sufficiently notable according to a conveniently-defined concept.

Please correct articles instead of subjecting them to opinionated importance. The presentation may not be notable, however, the contents may surely be. And please refrain from launching tirades of notability against new information. There are far more injustices in the world that ought to capture your enthusiasm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olivia.hobbes (talk • contribs) 00:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now this is getting interesting. You registered an acount to complain about my cleanup of non-notable entries at Secure instant messaging, which included removal of then-redlink GoldBug. After a short discussion with The Banner, who said that "[t]he most easy way to show that notability is by having an article", you disappeared. A bit later MarcoSU emerged with quick and dirty article and hastly reinstalled it to the list. And now you re-emerged only to leave a comment here, showing that you are aware of relevant policies of Wikipedia and calling to disregard them. Is it somehow connected to your statement that you have a business interest in one of the removed messengers? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 00:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promo, insufficient Reliable Sources The Banner talk 02:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm reasonably convinced that this is noteworthy on a technical level. I would advise the authors to submit a paper to an appropriate peer-reviewed publication - maybe IJACT would be a starting point. Samsara (FA • FP) 07:34, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • *Technically: KEEP the noteworthy article, but help Dimitrij : Dimitrij, when I was in university, I thought this world is my live. After having left the system, I thought it was good to do and there is a life after this. Wikipedia seems to be your life, commenting every line and answering every judgment, sharing this with all your friends, to demonstrate power within this tool and your community.

After having passed university, I can tell you, this article is from technical point of view to keep. And it has lots of references, summa sumarum a good article. I hope you can find a more relaxed way for life (than this (don't get me wrong) bastard-like behaviour like byting on a fixed positon) than having these "fixed ideas". Please learn to organize social processes and bring yourself into a real team. The messenger and its ideas will live even if it is not mentioned in the wikipedia, but the wikipedia would definately profit from this article, when it is kept. Dont get me wrong, it seems that you get more and more upset, there more is written, even about you. Don`t make it a personal goal and dont define your identity on these processes. It would not be good, in the sense to be recomendable as a wikipedia server admin, you want to become. Wikipedia is currently discussing in the meeting, how can users have more fun with editing wikipedia. Ask yourself if it is fun to work with you. Thanks. Stumbler. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.206.2.204 (talk) 14:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]


  • Hello, this is MarcoSU, the initial originator of the article. I have seen many people contributing to this article and it has been improved a lot. Thanks for that. Thanks as well for discussing this all, I appreciate quality control and a lot of references have been added by now by those who discussed this article. I request a keeping of the article, as I have studied many months this application and protocols and tried to write this article as best for wikipedia. I will not do this again and it would be a loss of information as I guess in the future no one other will have such many time and dedication to describe it. It would be a pitty loss for wikipedia, which is not comming back and this cannot be the result of checking-processes. Thanks for a consideration of all the work and hours of the initiator of this article and as well the many contributors to it. The participation of others and even this vivid discussion on this page speaks for itself to keep the elaborated work. Thanks as well to Dimitrij improving the article and in one comment as well speaking/voting for keeping it. The process the article has gone through improved it too. Thanks in advance, MarcoSU. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarcoSU (talk • contribs) 04:57, 12 August 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. Despite the local coverage adduced, the consensus is that, in accordance with WP:GEOSCOPE, nonlocal coverage would be needed for the article to be kept. Deor (talk) 12:44, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trout Unlimited Chili Cook-Off

[edit]
Trout Unlimited Chili Cook-Off (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)

Tagged for notability since 2010, this reads like a promotional article. Orphaned, nothing reaches here anyway. Non notable IMO Gbawden (talk) 08:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 24 July 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, j⚛e deckertalk 00:34, 1 August 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, BusterD (talk) 01:13, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the event has been consistently covered in the local newspaper throughout its history:
And it is quite sizable, drawing up to 7,000 festival goers per year. The consistency of the coverage and the size of the event convinces me of its marginal notability. Antrocent (♫♬) 02:16, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Antrocent's sources, Passes GNG .–Davey2010 • (talk) 03:49, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The Rome News-Tribune sure did cover it! To me, its still a local event that doesn't seem worthy of a WP article. This opens us up to having cake sales with their own WP article, if the local press covers it every year. Gbawden (talk) 18:07, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Rome, Georgia. Topic is locally notable due to local newspaper coverage. Where is the coverage outside of Rome, Georgia? Strawberrie Fields (talk) 20:01, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect - The coverage presented above does not convince me of this event's notability. Per WP:GEOSCOPE, an event affecting a local area and reported only by the media within the immediate region may not necessarily be notable. As it appears coverage outside of the local area is nonexistent, I cannot support this event's notability. Mz7 (talk) 18:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no coverage outside the local town newspaper, one sentence mention at best in local town Secret account 18:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No meaningful hits (other than listings) in the major databases. There is no presumption of greater notability in the article, nevertheless sourced. All coverage appears to be local. @Antrocent, did you find anything in non-local sources? Otherwise with the majority of coverage coming from the same source, I can't see it passing WP:N(E) in any way. If it's a major event in Rome, Georgia, ping me and I'll convert to "Redirect", but it currently isn't even mentioned once in the article. czar ♔ 18:21, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Seriously, y'all? Yes, the local newspaper covers the event, and, yes, this is why we (a) require multiple, independent, reliable sources to establish notability, and (b) routinely discount coverage in local media where the subject is located when we are evaluating such subjects. And, yes, multiple articles in the same newspaper still count as only one source. Speaking as a resident of Atlanta, Georgia and a dues-paying member of Trout Unlimited, this subject is no more notable than the annual pancake breakfast held by the Kiwanis Club, Jaycees or Rotary in a thousand towns across the United States. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:14, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A pancake breakfast held by the Kiwanis Club would not draw up to 7,000 attendants. Antrocent (♫♬) 12:36, 16 August 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_August_8&oldid=1142629624"