Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 February 15
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:49, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Colts–Jaguars rivalry (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 think that this article should be deleted because it has very little information and I don't even think that this is a moderately significant rivalry. This article has no contents on why it is a rivalry. But if you want to convince me that this is a rivalry go ahead. User:clecol99
- Note: This AfD was not started correctly. I have added it to today's log. I have no opinion in this AfD. -- Patchy1
REF THIS BLP
00:03, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The Jags haven't been especially good in their relatively short existence, something that's a major ingredient in a real rivalry. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:13, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Article doesn't assert the two teams are rivals, just that they exist....William 01:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not a true rivalry based on the objective evidence, fails GNG. Two teams that play in the same division are not automatically "rivals". – Muboshgu (talk) 15:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Per WP:NRIVALRY, no sports rivalry is inherently notable, and any rivalry should satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG for inclusion as a stand-alone article topic. GNG requires that the subject should be discussed in some depth in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Previous AfD rivalry discussions have also added the gloss that those multiple, independent, reliable sources should include in-depth discussion of the subject specifically as a rivalry series, not just as a game series or individual games. While prior AfD discussions are not binding precedent, I think these prior discussions are getting at what really constitutes a sports rivalry: a game series which has added significance to the coaches, players and fans of the rival teams, which added significance is sustained over a period of years, regardless of title, championship or playoff implications, and which is commonly recognized as a rivalry by the coaches, players, fans of those teams, and more importantly for WP notability purposes, by the media covering those teams. Yankees-Red Sox? Yes. Oklahoma-Texas? Yes. Colts-Jaguars? Not even close. We've already deleted closer calls than this. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Lotus (Christina Aguilera album). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Best of Me (Christina Aguilera song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Clearly the author has done his best at writing this article. But if this is all that can be said about "Best of Me" (minus the Background section, which does not have direct relevance to the song), we probably do not need this article. The information -- of which there isn't a substantial amount -- is all based on sources that focus on the album as a whole, so a merge is probably the best solution. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 23:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Don't try and make it sound like you are trying to pay a compliment and then AFD this article, Wikipedian Penguin. For a non-single, quite a lot of reviewers spoke about the song and made comparisons to others. And don't give me that crap about focus on the album. 90% of all Critical reception sections are composed of song reviews within an album review. An album review reviews the songs on the album. And it is contradictory to nominate for deletion and then say it should be merged. Why not place merge tags and allow for a discussion on the talk page? It passes notability guidelines at GNG. — AARON • TALK 01:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't help it if you take my nomination personally. We have two mediocre-length paragraphs of information that is actually directly related to the song. That is not passing WP:GNG. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 01:42, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It does pass GNG. — AARON • TALK 11:38, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Explain how so. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 11:48, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Because it passes each bullet point. Charting, or rather chart position, isn't an issue here. It's not a full requirement. — AARON • TALK 16:01, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It did not receive significant coverage, as I'd implied above and Till has stressed below. There's little information to warrant this article. True, charting is only an indication that the topic may possibly be notable because of its commercial success, but not always, as is the case with "Best of Me". —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 17:42, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Because it passes each bullet point. Charting, or rather chart position, isn't an issue here. It's not a full requirement. — AARON • TALK 16:01, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Explain how so. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 11:48, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It does pass GNG. — AARON • TALK 11:38, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't help it if you take my nomination personally. We have two mediocre-length paragraphs of information that is actually directly related to the song. That is not passing WP:GNG. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 01:42, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. The song lacks the significant coverage that is required for a standalone article. Let's take a look at the sources shall we.
- No mention of "Best of Me"
- No mention of "Best of Me"
- No mention of "Best of Me"
- No mention of "Best of Me"
- No mention of "Best of Me"
- No mention of "Best of Me"
- Album liner notes is a primary source → not indepdendent of the song
- Gets a tiny paragraph (like all the other songs) as part of the album. No significant coverage.
- Gets 2 lines as part of coverage of the album. No significant coverage.
- Music retailer → no coverage at all
- Contains three trivial sentences as part of the album review. No significant coverage.
- Contains three trivial sentences as part of the album review. No significant coverage. And "Popcrush" could hardly be considered a reliable source.
- Gets two trivial sentences as part of the album review. No significant coverage.
- Gets two trivial sentences as part of the album review. No significant coverage.
- Gets one trivial sentence as part of the album review. No significant coverage.
- Merely verifies a mediocre chart position, no coverage at all. Till 01:52, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What position a song charts at has nothing to do with it. No one said anything when "Dance for You" was created and had only charted at 200 on one chart did they. Well in that case Till, all critical reception sections are trivial, as they are all made up of album reviews. An album review reviews the songs. Think about it. — AARON • TALK 11:38, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Aaron, may I request you not to take "Dance for You" as an example here as it is a very unsuitable choice to defend BOM. My point is only that DFY had a music video and the article was created only after the music video was released, in fact nearly a month after its release. This was how the article stood back then. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 11:56, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Regardless, the chart position does not address the issue of a lack of 'significant coverage from third party sources. Till 12:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Merges should be proposed on article talk pages, not at AfD. --Michig (talk) 08:21, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]- To be honest, I'm not completely sure if a merge would be the best solution. I'm also considering redirecting as an option because there's hardly any information to merge. Much of the info is already covered in the Lotus critical response section. The background section is not even relevant to the song, so we can't move that. But if bringing this up at the talk page is still the best thing to do, we can withdraw this AfD. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 10:49, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- So you listen to someone else and not me then, Wikipedian Penguin, even though I said this above and you ignored it. — AARON • TALK 11:38, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I opened this discussion to see what would be the best solution; my guess was merge, but I wasn't sure. I can understand your frustration since a few of your contributions have been brought to question, but please stay focused on the matter and stop thinking I use double standards. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 11:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, you opened this AFD in order to have the article deleted. That is the aim of your action. This is not merely a discussion to talk about your concern. Don't try and pass it off as that, because it certainly isn't washing with me. If you had of wanted to discuss this, you could have posted on my user talk or the talk page of the article. You're obviously not the editor I thought you were. — AARON • TALK 16:01, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Aaron--Calvin? Please tone it down a bit and stop taking this personally, please. I don't think Penguin did anything wrong by the letter of the law, though proposing "merge" in an AfD is a bit of a clunker, and there is no reason to let this get out of hand. Michig, I agree with your point, certainly on principle, but IMO we might as well let this run and if "merge" is the outcome, so be it. Your advice is, as always, appreciated. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 18:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate both Michig's and Drmies' input on this. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 19:18, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. No objection to letting this run its course. --Michig (talk) 19:50, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- And I would go for Merge to Lotus (Christina Aguilera album) as the content about this song can easily be summarized there. --Michig (talk) 19:54, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Aaron--Calvin? Please tone it down a bit and stop taking this personally, please. I don't think Penguin did anything wrong by the letter of the law, though proposing "merge" in an AfD is a bit of a clunker, and there is no reason to let this get out of hand. Michig, I agree with your point, certainly on principle, but IMO we might as well let this run and if "merge" is the outcome, so be it. Your advice is, as always, appreciated. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 18:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, you opened this AFD in order to have the article deleted. That is the aim of your action. This is not merely a discussion to talk about your concern. Don't try and pass it off as that, because it certainly isn't washing with me. If you had of wanted to discuss this, you could have posted on my user talk or the talk page of the article. You're obviously not the editor I thought you were. — AARON • TALK 16:01, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I opened this discussion to see what would be the best solution; my guess was merge, but I wasn't sure. I can understand your frustration since a few of your contributions have been brought to question, but please stay focused on the matter and stop thinking I use double standards. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 11:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- So you listen to someone else and not me then, Wikipedian Penguin, even though I said this above and you ignored it. — AARON • TALK 11:38, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- To be honest, I'm not completely sure if a merge would be the best solution. I'm also considering redirecting as an option because there's hardly any information to merge. Much of the info is already covered in the Lotus critical response section. The background section is not even relevant to the song, so we can't move that. But if bringing this up at the talk page is still the best thing to do, we can withdraw this AfD. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 10:49, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or merge (with redirect to Lotus). I don't see that this song has independent notability outside of Lotus, and don't believe that it qualifies under WP:NSONG. The background section is almost entirely about the album (and quite similar to the one for the album and those in many of the songs from it), and as noted by Till, none of the sources give significant coverage of the song. As its charting amounts to one week's sales in South Korea of 1,840 digital downloads the week the album dropped (16 of 17 songs from the deluxe edition charted, 15 only in that week, and this was 14th at number 172), I don't believe it demonstrates notability. The content and notability issues are very similar to another song from Lotus, "Cease Fire", which I had nominated last week for AfD here; the discussion there, notably by the people who weren't involved in the article—Gongshow, Till, and Carabinieri—has helped inform my opinion. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Partial merge to Lotus (Christina Aguilera album) - lack of in-depth coverage in reliable sources, and there's no indication of importance or notability apart from the album: doesn't meet WP:NSONG. Since it's discussed by critics in the context of the album, and there's not thousands of words to be said about it, merge. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge (slight/as desired) into the Lotus page. If the most any publication can say about a song is (1) brief, and (2) contained in an album (p)review, I'm inclined to think the album page is an appropriate place to contain info on such material; i.e., it does not appear to meet WP:GNG (in-depth coverage in multiple independent sources) or WP:NSONGS. Gong show 21:27, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - If the outcome is merge, I will need time to merge the info to Lotus. — AARON • TALK 21:54, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:05, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Archon III: Exciter (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)
Fan-made, counterfeit computer game which by the article's own admission never attracted any press reviews. No notability. Psychonaut (talk) 22:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete—did not find any reliable sources discussing the game. Fails WP:GNG. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 23:38, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Thibbs (talk) 01:16, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- GenMyModel (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 product Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Both references in the article are primary sources. The second ref was written by Thomas Legrand a member of the dev team. Interestingly, the article was written by a new user, TomOnTheWeb, whose sole contributions have been to this article and the List of Unified Modeling Language tools page. It is possible there is a conflict of interest here, per WP:COI. I looked for independent sources and found only a blog, which is not considered reliable by Wikipedia standards. This looks like a case of WP:TOOSOON; the product has not been around long enough to garner secondary coverage in the media. While the article fails general notability WP:GNG and software notability WP:NSOFTWARE guidelines, re-creation of the article is reasonable when multiple independent reliable sources appear. --Mark viking (talk) 23:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Recent software with no coverage in independent reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to 2nd Weather Group. Will perform merge. (non-admin closure) Vacation9 00:12, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- 2nd Combat Weather Systems Squadron (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 squadron is not notable enough given the guidelines at WP:MILUNIT and precedents such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/609th Air Communications Squadron, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/43d Aircraft Maintenance Squadron, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/24th Transportation Battalion (United States). There's virtually no independent references to anything referencing with the unit besides USAF articles. I think the information in the article could be merged into the parent unit, the 2nd Weather Group, as a section explaining the squadron. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 February 15. Snotbot t • c » 20:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Summarize, Merge, & Redirect to 2nd Weather Group; upmerge this to parent organization.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:40, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Concur--Lineagegeek (talk) 22:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree— - dain- talk 03:00, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger One ping only 06:34, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Yunshui 雲水 14:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- JetGreen Airways (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is just riddiculous. This "airline" was around for only one week. I doubt that this was an airline at all, rather a tour operator which leased one single aircraft from Icelandair. Anyway, there is no significant coverage of this company itself, so the article should be deleted per WP:CORP. --FoxyOrange (talk) 20:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Wow, FoxyOrange really does not like airlines today. Here you go:
- JetGreen passengers stranded in Spain
- JetGreen Airways ceases trading after just one week
- JetGreen.gone - budget fliers stranded as airline goes bust
- JetGreen hopes to find a place in the Spanish sun
- Changing Flights (semi-tangential mention, but puts it in the context of other low-cost airlines that did the closed)
Did you bother to do a Google search before nominating? Because that's how I found those, and were it not for having a real life where there is actual shit I need to get done, I'd have easily found more. And if you did not, can we safely assume that you've also not done that for the other airlines in your little AFD Jihad? Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 20:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger One ping only 06:34, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per sources found by Collard. Notability is not temporary. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:34, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Based on the above reliable, secondary sources found by Collard (talk · contribs) for whom I thank, this subject certainly passes WP:GNG and WP:CORP requirements. I'd cite the nominator to read the deletion policy, notability policy and things to do before nominating at articles for deletion before creating further debates. TBrandley (what's up) 01:07, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. After three relistings and a couple of maybe maybe not comments, this debate isn't going anywhere. No prejudice to renomination. Secret account 05:17, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- John A. McNeice Jr (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 businessman and philanthropist. Neither being chairman of a non-notable company Colonial Group, nor the, admittedly generous, donation are enough to create inherent notability. No third party sources, as required by WP:N GrapedApe (talk) 13:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Possible delete - For the Inner-City Scholarship Fund, I found results here (Google News archives, two results), the first one is not free but can be viewed slightly more here. The second one was an award from the Archdiocese of Boston which also mentions some of his other work ("executive council of the Inner-City Scholarship Fund, the Archdiocesan Finance Council and Stewardship Committee and is past-president of Catholic Charities"). For the John and Margarete McNeice Student Formation Fund, I found republished Associated Press articles this and here (Google News archives, both require payment). Searches for American Ireland Fund provided nothing but for Colonial Group, I found another bc.edu link here which is a profile providing some of his history at Colonial Group. Google News archives provided several results, some of them relevant when he was still active as CEO but some of them as retired including this. Unfortunately the Boston Globe and Boston Herald do not provide free articles. Google Books provided a few directories. It seems the company may be notable as articles here, here (relevant preview is not shown) and the bc.edu link I provided earlier suggest they are "one of the nation's largest privately held mutual fund", "The oldest investment company in America now operating as a mutual fund" and "one of the most successful mutual fund management firms in the country". Although the results go on for pages and pages, I don't think there is much for an article to indicate he is notable himself and despite he was at Colonial Management from 1956 to the new name "Colonial Group" until the acquisition in which he retired, it seems he has spread more recognition as a philanthropist and significant association with Boston College now. I think an article could be built (probably a medium size stub) but, as mentioned, it seems his career was mostly with Colonial and now as a philanthropist. I'm willing to reconsider if other users think he is notable though. SwisterTwister talk 22:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 05:09, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 09:56, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- weak Keep The company is probably notable; it not having an article is not proof or even evidence of non-notability: it seems a major regional company. As CEO of it, he might be notable. A $6 million gift to a school is not evidence of prominence in philanthropy, or even warrant for being called a philanthropist--i think it's about an order of magnitude below where I would use the term. There is sufficient visible coverage to show he did what the article says he did. As inevitable with AP articles, most of the G News coverage says the same thing: perhaps we should consider this as one article, but we could equally well consider it as showing that multiple papers had chosen to reprint it, and thus provide multiple sources. I could justify going either way, equally well. We have no settled policies on whether to include or not include people of this relatively modest degree of notability; it usually comes does to the chances of finding things at the googles. Since this is an appropriately modest article not overstating his achievements in the absurd manner of promotional article, I used this as the deciding factor. With exactly the same content, but a few dozen superlatives and elaborate description of his hobbies and early life running schoolboy businesses, I'd have said delete.I know very well that is not a formal criterion, but I think it is justified by the spirit of making a respectable encyclopedia. Removing promotionalism is more important than removing borderline notability. One harms the encyclopedia, one doesn't. DGG ( talk ) 04:21, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 18:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. While there is some doubt on how the sourcing is used on this context, there wasn't much further commenting on it, thus the result. Secret account 05:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Economic terrorism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article does not provide the sources to establish the notability of "economic terrorism." I searched around with Google and most of the sources that use the expression seem to be conspiracy type websites and books. I am sure there could be instances of actions which could be called "economic terrorism", but there does not seem to be a consistent definition of what exactly that is in the mainstream. Borock (talk) 05:56, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the Google Scholar search shows academic use of the term. Yes, the Google search shows a lot of polemical use of the term, but "economic terrorism" is clearly used in academic and policy work. The article could use improvement, but it meets notability criteria.--Bkwillwm (talk) 06:33, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Scholar does look better. I still get the feeling that the sources are mainly talking about things that might happen, not something that can be pinned down in the here and now. Borock (talk) 06:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. I think the concept is rather vague in most sources indicated above, many of which are books of low (or no) academic quality (one is a book accusing the IMF of 'economic terrorism'), but there should probably be an article on it nonetheless. 188.26.163.111 (talk) 10:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Question - Is there a single reliable source with the substantive content that would demonstrate notability? Aside from polemicals, the earliest mention of the term I find is 1964 in JSTOR 2092127, but I can't read it in full right now. LeadSongDog come howl! 14:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As Bkwillwm points out, Google Scholar search points to a large number of papers using this term. I believe the search results can be mined for sources. LK (talk) 04:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As the nominator implied these are just two words that different writers use together, often effectively, to make a point. What the point is depends on the author, or maybe also the audience. Please check out the article terrorism. Most, if not all, the examples of "economic terrorism" given in the sources are not violent and are not intended to terrorize anyone. Kitfoxxe (talk) 05:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - there are a number of books that define and discuss the term/phrase in some detail, including references to Economic Terrorism taskforces/groups specifically established to counter this sort of activity. I would point to this, this and this as a start. There are a number of others. There are also a number of books that discuss the counter-meaning/alternate meaning (use of the phrase by left wing groups to describe corporate actions) like this and this. There are a number of others in this category too. There's definitely "terrorism with an economic impact" version and a "conspiracies about corporations terrorising communities" version. But I think there's probably enough to adequately define the different contexts in which the phrase is used and then build an article on that basis. Stalwart111 01:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I feel that in the future someone must do some original research to clarify the meaning of it but, as of now, the term exists and it is notable. What we need is to keep the article watched, and clean it as much as we can until experts pull out a good definition.--Forich (talk) 16:41, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - This is more or less a non-notable neologism as it sits. Governments have conducted covert efforts to create economic destabilization in opponent regimes, but I don't think that meets the definition of "terrorism," nor do I think this is a term for that in common use. Similarly terrorists might target economic targets in an effort to destabilize economies, but we don't have civilian terrorism, corporate terrorism, transportation network terrorism, etc. nor should we. That's sort of an OTHERSTUFF argument, but I think it's a good enough point. We shouldn't try creating an encyclopedic dictionary definition here out of whole cloth. Just because a phrase has been used doesn't mean it is an encyclopedic topic. My opinion, anyway. Redirect to Terrorism. Carrite (talk) 18:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione Message 18:34, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- an article to expand on a certainly notable topic.--Knight of Infinity (talk) 19:48, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Merger discussion can be provided elsewhere. (non-admin closure) TBrandley (what's up) 03:10, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Christopher Jordan Dorner (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)
Textbook case of WP:BLP1E. See also WP:BLPCRIME. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 17:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 17:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What's the difference between him and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Eagan_Holmes both have not been found guilty and both are only known for shootings.--Ron John (talk) 18:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The BBC have reported the search for this guy as California's largest ever manhunt. If that is true we should keep this. Also has outside US coverage. One of the main stories on tonight's BBC Six O'Clock News for example. This may fail WP:BLP1E, but it passes WP:GNG and WP:EVENT. Paul MacDermott (talk) 18:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note When writing my previous comments I didn't know we had 2013 Southern California shootings. But the information should be there. It's the event rather than the individual that is notable just now. Paul MacDermott (talk) 10:28, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge & Redirect to 2013 Southern California shootings#Suspect; Falls under WP:BLP1E. Subject/Suspect is notable, but is notable for one event. If 2013 Southern California shootings meets WP:LIMIT sometime in the future, this article can be recreated as a sub-article spinout of the parent article. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:41, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect as per Right Cow. The usual Wikipedia practice is to list crimes under the name of the crime, not the name of the (alleged) criminal. --MelanieN (talk) 18:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect per RightCowLeftCoast. We may eventually need a separate bio article but right now a single article about the crimes is what's called for. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect - as above. A merge discussion has already begun on the relevant article talk page, this AfD was unnecessary. GiantSnowman 19:56, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. A merge may be a bad idea until there is closure on the case. If it is kept as a seperate article then material on any suspects can be kept seperate from material on Mr. Dorner. Until closure they should be considered as two seperate people in wp articles.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:44, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep high profile incidents like this are not textbook cases for BLPIE, which is a guideline, not an absolute rule. there is info being reported which fits well into the crime article, but not into the biography, and vice versa. This is simply very similar to the Holmes case even at this early date, per RonJohn. PS, this really shouldnt be at AFD, but should be an active discussion at the articles, as there is no question that this article will NOT be fully deleted. the discussion is only about a merge/redirect, as he is obviously notable.(mercurywoodrose)50.193.19.66 (talk) 21:24, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect MacDermott, this can't pass WP:EVENT since a biography is not an event, that's why we put the material, as BLP1E indicates, into the event article rather than the individual article. BLP1E isn't about notability, it's about living people and due weight. 50.193: This has a couple days of headlines, but is not yet the sort of textbook "high-profile" case that a presidential assassination attempt is. Keeping a separate biography that focuses only on material relevant to the shootings, for an alleged criminal, is problematic because of bias and due weight involving living people. That's why we have BLP1E, that's the entire point of the policy. Ronjohn: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. LlamaAl: If you read BLP1E, you'll find that it's not a deletion rationale, it's a merge and/or redirect rationale, and deletion here isn't warranted. --j⚛e deckertalk 21:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Do not delete I'm backing away from having an opinion on the merge request given events since my original view, I think at this point a case could be made for various merges or keeps, and I no longer have a strong preference or policy opinion between the two. --j⚛e deckertalk 17:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. As a result of the shootings, he is now not only famous as a murderer, but also as an activist and author of a manifesto. There is more press attention about Dorner than there is about others who took part in small scale shootings, because of Dorner's unusual attributes. 67.1.67.151 (talk) 22:29, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdraw nomination in favor of merge discussion. Original deletion nomination was spurred by an admin's comments at WP:RFPP. In light of the rationale presented here, a merge seems more appropriate. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 22:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect for now, with no prejudice against spinning a new article out later when there's more to say about him. This content can currently be easily contained as a section of the main article. Robofish (talk) 22:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. This happens in every big media event. Should try to keep it to one article if we can, otherwise it creates too much redundancy. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:42, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I think these enough material coming out now to build a stand alone biographical article.-Kiwipat (talk) 22:44, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong merge and redirect, as per WP:PERP which states that:
- a) A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person.
- b) A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured.
- 90% of the article in its current form is lifted directly from 2013 Southern California shootings. Furthermore, Dorner has not been apprehended by law enforcement, and so his guilt has not yet been established. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:06, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This man is notable and his military record is of importance.Gangamstyle (talk) 00:42, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This doesn't fail BLP1E as others have said, because he is a major player in the event and has received significant news coverage.--JOJ Hutton 02:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: How does this not fail BLP1E? BLP1E clearly states that "Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article", so "receiving signficant news coverage" is not an argument to keep the article. Furthermore, BLP1E states that a person should not have an article is a) "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.", and I can find no mention of Dorner in relation to anything outside the shootings; b) "If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual.", and again, Dorner is not noted for his connection to anything beyond the shootings; and c) "It is not the case that the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented", and we don't even know if Dorner is, in fact, the person carrying out the shootings. He is only a suspect; his guilt has not been proven. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:53, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep His name is more notable than his crimes. Belongs on the List of serial killers in the United States.The guy's become an antihero, and this will only grow. He's not your common-or-garden ordinary criminal. He's intelligent, liberal (loves Obama, Piers Morgan and is pro anti-gun laws), has sympathetic issues, writes well, and is well informed. He's also about to be killed on sight. American to the core. JohnClarknew (talk) 04:35, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It's not Wikipedia's job to try and turn Dorner into some kind of folk hero. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:53, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- And what in God's name do his political leanings or tastes in cable TV have to do with anything whatsoever? --Calton | Talk 23:37, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable, and widely reported by numerous news sources. ScienceApe (talk) 04:37, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This template was removed from the article prematurely. I do not see any kind of consensus or resolution to the issue. If an adminstrator feels otherwise, please undo that edit I made the page restoring the note that it is up for deletion, and let me know via my talk page. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep While known due to reported criminal activity, Dorner has become emblematic of our times. There should be an article on the series if crimes, of course, but no tag line has yet emerged for those crimes. In any case, he will need a separate article.Madame L'Auteur (talk) 07:06, 9 February 2013 (UTC) — Madame L'Auteur (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Merge and redirect to 2013_Southern_California_shootings. As others have already said, the subject is notable only for this event; and since there isn't a whole lot of info on Christopher Dorner in the first place, why keep the info that is available separated? It might be more convenient to cram everything into a single article for those researching the topic. (which is actually the only reason I came here) 98.86.95.91 (talk) 07:24, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep until wait and relist Let's let a few more days play out and see how much the media reports this then relist. Tomato expert1 (talk) 08:01, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There is already enough of facts disclosed in the article, that it can serve as a reference for those interested in brief (unbiased) review of the case as well as those waiting for the news on the case. Mass media will have a lot of biased information, and in Wikipedia there can be more objective and alternative thoughts carried out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.71.227.111 (talk) 15:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect as per Prisonersmonkey and others. -Glump (talk) 17:43, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect per all above. Kurtis (talk) 18:38, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and resirect per WP:BLP1E. It doesn't help that the page has devolved into a reproduction of his screed. oknazevad (talk) 20:54, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep "1 Event" does not apply, he is wanted for numerous shootings. This is a notable criminal suspect, and this AfD stretches the limits of good faith. AlaskaMike (talk) 22:19, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh, guy, WP:BLP1E most certainly DOES apply, as it's all counted as one event -- you know, one crime spree -- and I'm having a hard time understanding what, exactly, is the "bad faith" in noting it as such. --Calton | Talk 23:37, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge The article about all the shootings and who died and Dorner himself is a better article than an article just about Dorner. Banaticus (talk) 22:38, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect per textbook case of WP:BLP1E. --Calton | Talk 23:37, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I cannot believe that this deletion is being considered (actually, from years of experience here, I can, but moving on...) Dorner will become part of California history if not a folk hero. FB friend Nick Ut covered an LA jail lock-down because of purported prisoner-sympathy for Dorner. The beating of the schizophrenic that triggered this event will likewise become "emblematic of our times" as his testimony was ignored by the LAPD inquiry because of mental illness--the alleged victim pointed to a sizable scar that should have gotten stitches. This is history in the making, but many wikipedians (some of whom self-identify here) lack the ability to comprehend the importance events like this. --John Bessa (talk) 01:12, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- For what it's worth, nobody appears to be making an argument for deletion, or nearly no one. Whatever question exists in the editors here is a question of which article name the material belongs best within, and whether the concerns that lead us to have a WP:BLP1E policy are applicable here. --j⚛e deckertalk 01:16, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Like I said, nothing here should be surprising.--John Bessa (talk) 02:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It's not for Wikipedia to try and turn Dorner into a folk hero. The fact that you think that a) he is, and b) it's our job to portray him like that is appalling. A page on Dorner might be appropriate once he has been apprehended and everyone begins to understand the full extent of what has happened. In the meantime, any material on Dorner is best-suited to the page on the shootings. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:33, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This man's personal story needs a separate page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.94.114.27 (talk) 00:17, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This man's story is so compelling that it requires its own page. To merge this page would be a disservice to Wikipedia users.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.104.19.182 (talk) 02:30, 10 February 2013 (UTC) — 74.104.19.182 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment: A "compelling story" is not reason enough for a Wikipedia page. Wikipedia is not a news service. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep pending further development of the story. It is already a major media event, well discussed among national American media. Not only that, it will very likely bring about some sort of commentary on supposed corruption in the police force in LA. Cdevon2 (talk) 06:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep In the future, many will know the individual by name and not by the event which could easily become confused with other named events. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.11.48.17 (talk) 07:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If the article is redirected, his name will still be searchable as a redirect, and a click on his name will direct readers to the appropriate article. --MelanieN (talk) 16:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The 2013 Southern California shootings page should be merged with this one. The article title of the 2013 Southern California shootings page has got to be a contender to win some sort of award for the most vague, mealy mouthed Wikipedia article title ever. Shootings occur in Southern California by the hour if not the minute. It's only 10 Feb 2013: there will be hundreds if not thousands more shootings between now and the end of 2013 in Southern California. Will all shootings in 2013 in Southern California henceforth be included in this article? In that case, then what about shootings in 2013 in Northern California; shootings in 2012 in Southern California and in all previous years; shootings in the rest of the fifty states of the USA, broken down region by region? No one looking for details about the alleged conduct of Christopher Dorner is going to search for 2013 Southern California shootings unless they already know the name of the article. An encyclopaedic article title needs to be precise, specific, and easily searchable and found. This applies to the Wikipedia article on Christopher Dorner by naming the article after the subject. 58.165.123.47 (talk) 10:39, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, there's enough coverage of the individual and his background to let a decent bio grow here covering more that just the crime spree. --HectorMoffet (talk) 12:04, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Already a notable individual by now. Keanu (talk) 13:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect There is no need for a separate article at this time. All relevant information can be covered on 2013 Southern California shootings. If the suspect becomes notable in his own right later on, we can easily make a split. In the meantime, it makes more sense to work on one unified article, and allow a separate bio article to grow there as a section, if it does. Wikipedia policies clearly support this position. A redirect also makes sense because it makes the article more easily searchable than its current vague title. Bigdan201 (talk) 16:28, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy close The nominator has withdrawn the delete nomination, and no-one else has !voted "delete". A delete discussion is not the place to choose a merger target. The only possible closure for this discussion is "keep, and discuss a merge or rename at the appropriate talk page." In this case the appropriate place to discuss keep-or-merge is at Talk:2013 Southern California shootings#Merge/redirect. --MelanieN (talk) 16:47, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You cannot WP:SK an article that has had subsequent discussion that is not unanimous. Delete and Keep are not the only outcomes of an AfD discussion as listed at WP:XFD. Furthermore, I have reverted User:Tomato expert1's close as keep of this AfD as he participated in the discussion (and not an administrator or experienced good standing editor; 4/4 guideline points not followed) as per WP:NACD. Mkdwtalk 07:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Regardless of your reasons, reopening this is pointless. Consensus to keep has already been achieved, and since the AFD closed, there has been significantly more coverage on Dorner. ScienceApe (talk) 07:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean regardless of policies/guidelines we should ignore the rules and do whatever we want? You must understand, the reason we have policies and guidelines as a pillar of Wikipedia is because even though you would agree, the consensus is not clear if it is 'keep' or 'merge'. Mkdwtalk 20:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- In this case yes. Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. There was not one single vote for deletion, and relisting this after Dorner had been killed in the mountains is fairly absurd considering the massive amount of coverage he got in the final showdown. Merge discussions are already taking place on relevant talk pages, they are not decided in an AFD. Please close this. ScienceApe (talk) 22:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- close, please. Deletion rationale no longer applies: "WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of living people." Wikipedia:BLPCRIME not a valid reason for deletion. Redundant to merge discussions at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Christopher_Jordan_Dorner#Proposed_merger_from_2013_Southern_California_shootings and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2013_Southern_California_shootings#Merge.2Fredirect --Rybec (talk) 08:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redundant discussion is not a reason to close an AfD that lacks consensus. Please do not take this as an endorse to one side of the argument or another. It would have appeared a merge template and centralized discussion would have been preferable considering the consensus but I will not condemn the nominator for their actions in the AfD considered they have been supported in their guideline based argument by others in the merge & redirect camp. Mkdwtalk 20:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean regardless of policies/guidelines we should ignore the rules and do whatever we want? You must understand, the reason we have policies and guidelines as a pillar of Wikipedia is because even though you would agree, the consensus is not clear if it is 'keep' or 'merge'. Mkdwtalk 20:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and Close - per above BLP no longer applies as suspect is now dead. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It still does, please see WP:BIO1E which applies to everybody. TBrandley (what's up) 15:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Kind of torn but Merge and redirect as per RightCowLeftCoast rationale appears best. Otherwise, just keep outright. Quis separabit? 17:09, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep only because merging seems to imply guilt in all of the murders, and it's likely that this will never be established in at least two of the cases (unfortunately). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 18:40, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 18:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--it's valuable information not covered in news features very often. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.209.139.114 (talk) 18:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- The article, in my humble opinion, is very neutral in stating the facts about this individual. His story is very interesting in that it can be argued that he was a good man, a soldier and policeman who was wronged when he was young, and was fired for doing his duty. There is no excuse for murdering people, and no justification. There is also no excuse for
the abuse he suffered while growing up, and apparently no excuse for his firing. There are a lot of things to think about in his story, and lessons for everyone to learn. Please keep this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.86.21.249 (talk) 19:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge & Redirect per RightCow and others. WP:BLP1E still applies, and all of the varius "Keep" votes making arguments in the nature of "This man's story needs to be told!" or "This is valuable information!" does not reflect any Wikipedia policy, and are thus not valid as arguments for an AFD. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 19:09, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- BLP applies to a Bio of a Living person. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Why was this held over? Will some admin please step up, make a call, and get this out of the queue? Carrite (talk) 19:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow Keep This guy is obviously notable, passes WP:GNG, is reliably sourced, etc etc... IronKnuckle (talk) 01:18, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The Strongest Keep I Could Ever Give Without Cursing The Nominator Out Sorry, if Breivik, Holmes, Loughner can get a page, why can't Dorner? You may or may not see these guys in your textbook, but I urge you to actually read the WP:BLP1E you linked ever so prominently as your basis for nomination. I do not see WP:BLPCRIME being violated on the article, either. Next time think real hard before you make another nomination without basis. Thank you. 24.7.227.169 (talk) 02:13, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Secret account 01:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Apprentiship of Mr. Smith: The Birth of Ne-Yo (Ne-Yo 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)
Does not meet notability guidelines for albums and has no independent coverage apart from a few retail postings at Amazon.com and CD Universe (WP:NALBUMS). Appears to be a bootlegged release of no importance (Googled) Article title is also spelled wrong. Dan56 (talk) 23:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Ne-Yo article. Like the above, I can confirm the existance of this album, insofar as allmusic has a track list. However, as allmusic doesn't have an actual review of the album, nor indeed can I find any reliable review in any of the mainline press, this is probably not a notable enough for a standalone article. --Jayron32 00:37, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I couldn't find any independent coverage also. But, please, include the information of the album in Ne-Yo discography, with iTunes or Amazon as source. I would suggest placing it under the "others" category, until we find reliable sources explaining why this album isn't listed on his official discography. It seems to be a bootleg of early works. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 00:43, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 01:54, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 01:54, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, bootleg release. Redirect will be unnecessary since some people think all albums need to have "(Ne-Yo album)" at the end, which is not the case. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't make any sense. The Amazon and iTunes links are more than sufficient to establish it as an official album. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 13:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldnt rule anything out with retailers (Fact magazine article). I suppose something from the artist or his label would verify it as such. Dan56 (talk) 21:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I didn't know that. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 13:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirects are cheap. Bearian (talk) 00:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 18:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. As Dan56 said, the album title is misspelled; I'm not convinced this is worth even a redirect. Also, no coverage found in reliable sources for this record - doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS. A redirect of The Apprenticeship of Mr. Smith: The Birth of Ne-Yo to the Ne-Yo discography is something to consider, although the album is not mentioned there. Gong show 18:39, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This album is an unauthorized compilation. It should be deleted right away. Koala15 (talk) 20:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Passes notability guidelines. Airline did fly. (non-admin closure) Vacation9 00:00, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Aria (French airline) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Extremely short-lived airline (September 2004 to January 2005), which obviously did not have any noteworthy impact on the aviation industry. This company has not been the subject of any significant coverage in reliable, independent media either, so it fails WP:CORP. --FoxyOrange (talk) 17:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Scheduled airline that actually flew, sources exist (added some). Encyclopedia is better with this information than without it. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger One ping only 06:30, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Passes notability standards, through coverage, and through having been a scheduled airline. Notability is not temporary. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:30, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep operated scheduled services, short-lived doesnt distract from notability. MilborneOne (talk) 16:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hellas Airlines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
An airline not yet operational, therefore inherently unencyclopedic (per WP:BALL) and not notable. Of course, the article is also to be deleted per WP:CORP, as Hellas Airlines has not been the subject of any significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. --FoxyOrange (talk) 17:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC) FoxyOrange (talk) 17:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger One ping only 06:29, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There are hits on Google news for "Viking Hellas Airlines", which is evidence that the nomination did not click on Google news; so the notability argument is probably based on reading the article, and the crystal ball here is the assertion that "Hellas Airlines has not been the subject of any significant coverage in reliable, independent sources." But this is a "high priority" article and has only the primary source. There is a history for "Viking Hellas Airlines" covered at Fly Hellas, but I see nothing on the company website to connect the two. The company website doesn't even seem to verify the asserted founding year of 2012. Links to government certifications on the company website would be a start, a history of the company legal papers with dates, and most of all a record of coverage in secondary sources (i.e., newspapers) would help Wikipedia editors. Unscintillating (talk) 03:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This has got to be a vanity/internet hoax or scam of some kind. Even though there has been a press conference and a couple of news websites have reposted the "airline's" press release, the data about the fleet and the flights is ridiculous. Their Airbuses have a low consumption on oil, the "wanted" air stewardesses "must be able to carry baggage trailers 100kg or more"... [1], the person who started the greek article postponed the start of flights to "when pigs will fly"... etcetera - Badseed (talk) 18:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Based on the policy-derived arguments, this seems to be a fairly clear consensus. No in-depth coverage found, no independent reviews, etc. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:26, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}} . |
- A Guide to Human Conduct (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Self-published book by Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar aka Shrii Shrii Anandamurti. Cited in a single footnote in the peer-reviewed literature, no reviews or discussion of the book in the popular or scholarly press. Not listed in the bibliography of Inayatullah's _Understanding Sarkar_. No notability and little likelihood of establishing notability going forward. Recommend delete. GaramondLethe 03:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep:
- The book is the subject of instruction at multiple elementary schools, secondary schools, colleges/universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country.
- Wikipedia:Harassment
- Wikipedia:Gaming the system
- And honestly Garamond, if you want to make constructive edits instead of destructive ones, go and tag the articles instead of proposing deletion. Anyone can see that you're systematically proposing to delete all articles related to Sarkar, while you could do something to better them.
- The previous nominator for deletion, even has withdrawn his nomination as he says that the article is indeed notable. --Universal Life (talk) 12:18, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply If this book is used at multiple schools then it's obviously notable. Given sufficient reliable sources to that effect I'll be happy to withdraw the nomination for deletion. I prefer to use tags on articles where there I believe there is an open question on notability. For most of Sarkar's works this is not, in my opinion, an open question. GaramondLethe 17:06, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Morality is part of the instruction at all of the many Ananda Marga schools. I have now requested a statement to that effect from the Central Office of AMPS, but there is no telling how long it may take to get that. However, if you will trust my good faith here, this may be confirmed on two websites that I have personally worked on. (1) Here is a 1982 book - I know... primary, COI, yada yada - that describes the system of Ananda Marga education. Note the section on morality. Naturally, in an Ananda Marga school, morality is taught according to the primary text on the subject by Shrii Shrii Anandamurti, that is, "A Guide to Human Conduct". (2) Here you will find some teaching aids (a board game and a PowerPoint presentation) for instruction on morality based on the guidelines found in "A Guide to Human Conduct". I might also mention that in Ananda Marga, instruction in meditation is given free of charge, but it is only given after a seeker has understood and accepted the principles of morality. So, in this respect, "A Guide to Human Conduct" has "made a significant contribution to a significant religious movement" (in accordance with Point 3 of WP:NB). Needless to say, my vote would be Keep, but I am hoping that there will be no need for me to vote yet again after only one month on this same book. --Abhidevananda (talk) 02:42, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If this book is part of the curriculum in AM school then you have a difficult-but-doable argument to make that the AM school system in notable and can confer its notability on the books that it requires. That's a stretch, but it could work. Arguing that this book influenced a religious movement based on an attenuated definition of "influence" and in the absence of any independent reliable sources just isn't going to fly. (If the latter argument was going to work it would have prevented any article on a Sarkar book from being deleted. It's my understanding that this clause is used only for works outside of the religious moment that have a significant effect.) GaramondLethe 19:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Garamond, your second comment contradicts your first comment, where you said; "If this book is used at multiple schools then it's obviously notable". References are there out, they are just to be searched and added here. And the very reason with which you nominated this article would be completely removed. --Universal Life (talk) 20:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been told a number of stories about references recently that didn't turn out to be true, so I'd prefer to see the references myself first before withdrawing the nomination. GaramondLethe 20:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- GL, why would I need to establish that the Ananda Marga system of education is notable? I can easily do that when and if there should be an article on that subject. However, here no such restriction should apply. Ananda Marga schools (primary, secondary, tertiary) are all legally recognized and approved by the countries in which they operate. If you think otherwise, I submit that you should show some evidence for such an odd belief. But, anyway, I am trying to get a certified letter to the effect that I mentioned. Like I said, it could take a while. This is not the highest priority in the AMPS Central Office. While waiting, let me point out one significant defect in your AfD nomination. You claim here - as well as in other AfD nominations - that the book you nominated is self-published. That is false. None of these books are self-published, and they are a long way removed from any type of vanity publishing. --Abhidevananda (talk) 07:47, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The onus is on you to show that the Ananda Marga school system is significant enough that its curriculum choices can influence notability, and that this book is indeed a part of the curriculum. You're free to argue that this isn't the case, but I don't think you'll persuade too many editor that way. As to the publication, the books are not published by an independent third party. Arguing over what to call that isn't going to advance this discussion. GaramondLethe 14:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Editor's comment: I am forced to repeat here what I said in innumerable AfD proposed by the same group of censors. This book is a part of the vast literary heritage of Shrii Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar and it's one of the various articles related with Sarkar, that I wrote on WP. Have we to prefer an encyclopaedia representing the various aspects of human knowledge or have we to continuosly propose all that we don't like/agree for deletion? It's very easy to delete an article but it's more difficoult to build, or constructively help to support/expand/improve it. As a relatively recent editor I ask me: is it more useful to see in WP some experienced editors (strengthened by their advanced procedural knowledge and by a discrete logistical support of a few others) engaged almost exclusively in the easy work of articles' deletion rather than in the more difficoult task of their creation and improvement? I hope you all will understand me if I express here my strong complaint but I don't really even know where to write it.--Cornelius383 (talk) 11:04, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep: for the reasons above.--Cornelius383 (talk) 11:04, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Documentation: This archive contains the scholarly article, "Karma Samnyasa: Sarkar’s Reconceptualization of Indian Asceticism", by Shaman Hatley and Sohail Inayatullah. Note that this article references "A Guide to Human Conduct", which was clearly the basis for the observation in the article (with succeeding amplification) that "Sarkar reinterprets several facets of yama and niyama having a particular relevance to asceticism: brahmacarya, ahimsa (non-violence) and tapas (penance)" (see page 145). --Abhidevananda (talk) 13:13, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- And references still aren't used to establish notability. Again, my own work is far more heavily cited than Sarkar's in the peer-reviewed literature. That does not make my work notable (in the wikipedia sense), nor should it. GaramondLethe 14:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought I made it clear that a substantial portion of that scholarly article is about the content of "A Guide to Human Conduct". --Abhidevananda (talk) 15:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There are four citations in this paper to AGtHC. AGtHC is not discussed anywhere in the paper, only referenced. There is a baseline level of WP:COMPETENCE needed if you're going to contribute here successfully. Part of this is reading and understanding the citations you provide. GaramondLethe 17:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability of the Ananda Marga education system (often referred to as "neohumanist education") See here --Abhidevananda (talk) 15:21, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- In case anyone gets an internal server error (500) when following the above link, click Refresh. The correct target page should appear. --Abhidevananda (talk) 10:21, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; despite the usual walls of text, there's still no actual evidence that this subject is notable. I don't mean "evidence that people who believe in one sarkar thing also believe in another sarkar thing", I don't mean "evidence that something related to this text is notable", I mean actual evidence that A Guide to Human Conduct passes the GNG. bobrayner (talk) 23:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- delete The usual array of self-referential, in-world, self-published sources. Mangoe (talk) 01:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Scholarly article: While waiting for a statement from the AMPS Central Office regarding the use of this book in relation to the many Ananda Marga schools (Neohumanist Education), here is a scholarly article by Dr. Michael Towsey, in which, among other things, he discusses moral principles with specific reference to the book, "A Guide to Human Conduct". --Abhidevananda (talk) 10:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Independent Hindu blog reproduces the entire book: No doubt a violation of copyright, but still it is of interest that an independent blog promoting Hinduism has reproduced the entire book, "A Guide to Human Conduct", [here. Clearly, this is not a case of "self-publishing"... at least not by the author of the book. --Abhidevananda (talk) 10:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Importance of morality in schools based on "Neohumanist Education system: According to the official website for Neohumanist Education, "Neohumanist Education is practiced in a network of schools and institutes that span over fifty countries with more than 1000 kindergartens, primary schools, secondary schools, colleges and children’s homes that have been established over the past 30 years." On the curriculum-values page of that same website, we see the importance given to morality in the Neohumanist Education system. The page begins with a quotation from Sarkar, the founder of this education system, in which he states: "The practice of morality should be the most important subject in the syllabus at all levels." A bit further down on that same page we read: "There are some basic guidelines that are followed in NHE schools to help us in our daily decision making, in classroom management, in choosing Literature, in setting policies, in solving problems, etc." That statement is followed by a list of 10 guidelines/principles that (more or less) correspond to the 10 elements of Yama-Niyama, as presented in Sarkar's book "A Guide to Human Conduct". Hence, the importance of Sarkar's book, "A Guide to Human Conduct", in respect to numerous schools around the world is well established. --Abhidevananda (talk) 11:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- To work backwards: Neo-humanism is of course Sarkar's system, and therefore it isn't notable that neo-humanist organizations appeal to his works. A blog is not considered a reliable source, especially when it is published by someone who is manifestly a follower. Finally, Z Net, while looking more promising, gives the appearance of verging on self-publication; their own self-description, and that of others, seems to indicate that their editorial policy is essentially indiscriminate. Mangoe (talk) 12:57, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This archive contains a signed statement from Cathy Lee, Director of the Sunshine School in Laos. Her statement testifies to the fact that both "A Guide to Human Conduct" and "The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism" are core material in respect to the training of teachers and the curriculum imparted to the Sunshine School students. Over the coming days, I expect to receive more documents testifying to the same effect. --Abhidevananda (talk) 12:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I see on the school website that "The ethos of the School comes from Ananda Marga," which as everyone by now who follows this is aware is the organization centered on Sarkar's principles. Therefore it is unsurprising that they might work from his texts. Again, this is a lack of independent notability. Mangoe (talk) 13:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, Mangoe. You have just established the notability of A Guide to Human Conduct for us! Ananda Marga has many hundreds of schools around the world. In your own words, "it is unsurprising that [those schools] might work from [Sarkar's] texts". Point 4 at WP:NB reads: "The book is the subject of instruction at multiple elementary schools, secondary schools, colleges/universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country." In this point, there is no mention that the schools must be entirely unrelated to the author! How many authors would establish an organization that then establishes hundreds of schools just to establish notability for one of the author's books on Wikipedia? --Abhidevananda (talk) 02:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not how the standard works. The schools are obviously related to the author, being schools founded on the principles of the organization he founded! Mangoe (talk) 11:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I see on the school website that "The ethos of the School comes from Ananda Marga," which as everyone by now who follows this is aware is the organization centered on Sarkar's principles. Therefore it is unsurprising that they might work from his texts. Again, this is a lack of independent notability. Mangoe (talk) 13:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep: my opinion is that the article has sufficient sources.--Anta An (talk) 23:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)— Anta An (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 23:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is a signed statement by Mary Anne Lovage, Head Teacher of the Sunrise Nursery and Primary School in London. She talks about the international educational trust that her school is part of, and she testifies to the importance of the two books, A Guide to Human Conduct and The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism in their teacher training. --Abhidevananda (talk) 11:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC) updated with link to school website --Abhidevananda (talk) 02:39, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 13:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG. There are no independent reliable sources discussing this, and none of the subject's defenders have been able to provide anything. We've had various links to the author's own work, and broken links, and a reference to a paper ZCommunications which seems to publish user-submitted content and certainly isn't a scholarly journal. The chief claim advanced for notability is WP:NBOOK #4. To justify this I would require (1) reliable evidence showing Sarkar/Anandamurti's work is used in education ("Notability requires verifiable evidence"); (2) evidence that it is widely used, not just at 1 or 2 institutions, and preferably at institutions which are not closely linked; (3) that the book is "independent" and not written largely for use in educational institutions; (4) that it considered is a "major work in philosophy, literature, science", or another area of knowledge. Lastly the principles in NBOOK are guidelines indicating a work that is likely to have third-party sources, and if there are no 3rd-party sources, we can still delete or merge to the author's page. Wikipedia articles on books should not be simple summaries/descriptions, but must have critical commentary and background information (see WP:SNOWFLAKE for an essay.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I would dispute just about everything that Colapeninsula [CP] has stated. (1) I have provided links to two scholarly articles on the subject. Perhaps those articles do not meet CP's rigid standards, but they do tend to dispel the hyperbole of "no independent reliable sources discussing this". (2) Yes, there have been links to the author's own work, but there have also been many links to the statements and websites of others. (3) I am not aware of any "broken links". There is one link that initially comes up with an internal server error (500), but clicking Refresh then brings up the intended page. (4) Criterion 4 of WP:NBOOK is not the "chief claim advanced for notability". An examination of the first AfD nomination reveals that I asserted 3 out 5 of the criteria at WP:NBOOK. That is still my position, and I consider the argument for each of those three criteria to be strong. As I have not yet formally voted in this second AfD debate, I will do so below, appending an amplification of those three arguments. (5) CP asks for "verifiable" evidence that Sarkar's work is used in education. If websites and signed statements do not satisfy CP, then s/he is at liberty to contact either of the persons in those signed statements or anyone available at the contact page on those websites. "Verifiable" only means that CP - or anyone else - has sufficient information to do the verification. It does not mean that CP can sit back and claim that something is not verified simply because CP did not make any effort to do so. Here we are not writing or rewriting the article - we are just discussing notability. (6) CP wants evidence that this book is "widely used" and "not just at 1 or 2 institutions". Again, evidence has been given of use in at least two schools, and two qualifies as "multiple" (more than one), per Criterion 4 of WP:NBOOK. No one is obliged to satisfy the more stringent requirements that CP apparently would impose. (7) CP wants to know that the book was "not written largely for use in educational institutions". Even a cursory glance at the book should prove that for anyone curious about such a matter. (8) CP wants evidence that this book is considered [by whom CP does not say] to be a "'major work in philosophy, literature, science' or another area of knowledge". I am unclear as to why CP insists on this, but according to Criterion 3 of WP:NBOOK, it should be sufficient that this is clearly the view of many knowledgeable members of Ananda Marga worldwide. (9) CP's last argument about what an article should have in it may be valid, but it only suggests a reason to impose a flag on the article, not to delete the article. If we were to delete every article on Wikipedia that is not perfect (according to CP's standards), then the number of articles on Wikipedia might drop from 4,000,000 to 4,000. --Abhidevananda (talk) 10:18, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep: the intervention of Abhidevananda convinced me to change my vote from "keep" to "strong keep".--Anta An (talk) 00:45, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: As demonstrated by the table below, A Guide to Human Conduct greatly exceeds Wikipedia requirements for notability. Only one out of the five criteria listed at WP:NBOOK must be satisfied. A Guide to Human Conduct satisfies not just one but three of the criteria.
WP:NBOOK Criteria Satisfied by A Guide to Human Conduct Criterion Compliance References 3. The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a significant motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement. A Guide to Human Conduct was first published in 1957 by Ananda Marga Pracaraka Samgha (then barely two years old). As of September 2004, the book was in its seventh reprinting. Ananda Marga encourages everyone to meditate (perform sadhana, spiritual practice). However, in the view of Sarkar (and hence Ananda Marga), the peformance of sadhana is impossible without Yama-Niyama, the yogic code of ethics that is explained in this book. That statement appears at the beginning of each book written by Sarkar. It is found in what is called "The Supreme Command". Similarly, in Sarkar's Introduction to this very book, A Guide to Human Conduct, Sarkar states: "It must, therefore, be emphasized that even before beginning Sádhaná, one must follow moral principles strictly. Those who do not follow these principles should not follow the path of Sádhaná; otherwise they will bring about their own harm and that of others." Hence, in Ananda Marga, instruction in meditation is not dependent on financial contribution but rather upon commitment to the moral code set out authoritatively in this very book (and in no other book by Sarkar). The importance of Yama-Niyama (yogic morality) for spiritual aspirants is stressed not only in this book but also in Ananda Marga Caryacarya Part 1 and Part 2 (2 out of 3 parts of the Ananda Marga social code). However, as stated, this may be verified by simply opening the front cover of any of the many books by Sarkar published by Ananda Marga in many languages and reading "The Supreme Command". For further evidence, examine the source code of Template:Yama-Niyama, which is used in the Ananda Marga article. The source code begins with the following comment: "This infobox template is based on the 10 principles of yogic morality (yama-niyama) as explained by Shrii Shrii Anandamurti in A Guide to Human Conduct. 4. The book is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country. As evidenced in the preceding discussion, this book is indeed the subject of instruction at multiple schools. It is a fundamental part of the Neohumanist Education system adhered to by all of the many hundreds of Ananda Marga schools around the world. Signed statements by the in-charges of two prestigious schools, one in Laos and the other in London, as well as links to various websites connected with Neohumanist Education [2] [3] [4]. Additional evidence may be provided, but this already meets the criterion for "multiple" schools, and there does not appear to be any dispute on the number of Ananda Marga schools that maintain such a course of study. 5. The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is him/herself notable by Wikipedia's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study. This argument was recently advanced by a Wikipedia administrator, J04n in the failed AfD nomination on Discourses on Tantra (Volumes 1 and 2). Though the book was different, clearly this argument has equal impact in respect to other books. When J04n's assertion was questioned by the AfD nominator on that book as well as this book, I seconded the position of J04n with the following remarks: "I can understand Garamond's doubt as to the historical importance of Sarkar, based purely on what he can find in Western academic circles. However, the life of Sarkar was extraordinary - for example, he underwent seven years in jail on trumped up charges, with more than five years and four months fasting in protest of being poisoned in jail - and during that same time, his organization spread like wildfire around the world. Furthermore, Sarkar's contributions reflect progressive novelty in more areas of individual and collective life than any other historical figure that I am aware of. Philosophy, socioeconomic theory, spiritual practices, music, dance, cosmology, ontology, science, history, ethics, and much, much more - Sarkar covered them all. One need not agree with everything that Sarkar said to appreciate such an achievement. One simply needs to understand that these achievements were not mere dabbling. At the very same time as Sarkar was giving his 5,018 songs of Prabhat Samgiita, he also gave 26 original volumes of books on philology (Shabdha Cayanika) and spent many hours in organizational meetings regarding service work around the world - meetings that took place four times each day (seven days a week). So, yes, I think that Sarkar's works meet criterion 5 of WP:BKCRIT, and I am amazed that anyone would concern themselves so much to seek the deletion of such articles. After all, this is a virtual encyclopedia. We are not killing trees or eating up a great amount of any other precious resource by providing accurate and neutral articles on a subject that may be of interest to readers of Wikipedia. Okay, these articles might not accumulate the greatest number of hits on Wikipedia. But so what? Wikipedia still provides a service to the public by making this information available, especially when any of these books are not yet cited in Garamond's "peer-reviewed literature". Criterion 5 of WP:BKCRIT and WP:IAR are tailor-made for a case like this." I stand firmly by those remarks. In the words of J04n, "The historical significance of Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar renders all of his works notable." Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Discourses_on_Tantra_(Volumes_1_and_2)
- And yet despite this book's massive importance, it resides in exactly 6 libraries worldwide. Garamond Lethet
c 13:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you manage to search for the book with its Bengali and Hindi names and at the National Library of India? --Abhidevananda (talk) 15:51, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If you thought the plethora of Bengali translations in libraries around the world would establish notability you would have done the search already. You're smart enough not to waste your time searching for something that isn't there. So am I. Garamond Lethet
c 20:39, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If you thought the plethora of Bengali translations in libraries around the world would establish notability you would have done the search already. You're smart enough not to waste your time searching for something that isn't there. So am I. Garamond Lethet
- Garamond, as you would know if you had bothered to read the article that you nominated for deletion, I am not talking about "Bengali translations". There have been no Bengali translations. This book was originally written and published in Bengali. In point of fact, English is the translation, and there have been many other translations as well. The article on A Guide to Human Conduct specifically references a Spanish edition, a Brasilian edition, an Italian edition, and a Russian edition. Accordingly, a complete search of libraries for this book requires more than just a cursory use of WorldCat in respect to the English title of the book. It requires a search in all of the languages in which the book has been published as well as in all of the libraries of the world. Your admission that you did not "waste your time" making a search for anything other than the English title demonstrates the bias of your approach and the utter unreliability of your claim that this book "resides in exactly 6 libraries worldwide". --Abhidevananda (talk) 03:53, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Bengali version in University of Calcutta library: On a concurrent AfD by Garamond here, Garamond provided us with a largely irrelevant undergraduate syllabus from the University of Calcutta, but he seems to have neglected to search the library for the book in question. That book was indeed there. Interestingly, when we search that same University of Calcutta library for "A Guide to Human Conduct", the book does not appear to be there. But when we change the search and look for the Bengali name, it is there, listed as "Jiban-bed" - a Latin-script transliteration of the Bengali name. So, clearly, searches for the Bengali and Hindi names in the libraries of India (for the most part, not cataloged by WorldCat) does indeed make a difference. --Abhidevananda (talk) 04:25, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- So we're up to seven libraries holding the book worldwide.... Garamond Lethet
c 05:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- So we're up to seven libraries holding the book worldwide.... Garamond Lethet
- My "
strong keep" is much clearer after the last interventions. Thanks to all.--Cornelius383 (talk) 09:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]- You can !vote only once. Your other comments should not be tweaked to look like a !vote. Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 20:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC) [reply]
- My "
- Delete - I agree absolutely with both bobrayner and Mangoe and have also found no cogent argument or reason why this book deserves a separate article when its message could easily be incorporated or summarised in the Ananda Marga article itself, since the AM related institutions seem to be using it most. That, too, says nothing about the notability or importance of the publication. Where else would one expect the book to be promoted most e.g.the Berlitz Corporation previously Berlitz International has for decades promoted its acclaimed language teaching methods by promoting its own books which are used around the world. It is par for the course. And so it is with this work. I have found no evidence whatsoever to convince me that it deserves a page of its own. If Sarkar's admirers here were to have their way, we would end up having more Wiki articles on him and his thoughts than the likes of Immanuel Kant, Arthur Schopenhauer, Hegel, Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, Rabindranath Tagore or Bertrand Russel, to mention a few really illustrious figures in the world of philosophy. I note, too, that one supporter here has created a new account just to vote on these Sarkar-related AfD pages. Sockpuppets have their own agenda.--Zananiri (talk) 18:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: The notability is shown in the table above. (BTW, regarding Zananiri's rant above, no doubt additional articles on the work of those illustrious figures should be created in WP.) DezDeMonaaa (talk) 19:42, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- comment This user has done almost no editing except on Ananda Marga and to vote in these deletion discussions. Mangoe (talk) 13:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment- The notability seems evident. The sources have to be expanded.--Knight of Infinity (talk) 21:41, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- with the hope that the editors will insert new references when available.--Knight of Infinity (talk) 21:41, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yet another editor who has made his/her way to this Afd within 48 hours of account creation. Location (talk) 00:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Unfortunately, I remain unconvinced of this book's notability. Incorporating key points into Ananda Marga as suggested by Zananiri is fine. Looking for sources with the search terms
"a guide to human conflict" sarkarand"a guide to human conflict" anandamurtiturns up nothing (but if foreign language sources are presented, they should be considered). That the book is widely used and taught in Ananda Marga circles doesn't say much about notability. Honestly, I don't feel qualified to comment on the significance of Sarkar as an author, but given the above points, I doubt that this book is notable on its own. All I'm looking for is evidence of this book passing the GNG, but it doesn't look like it's there. CtP (t • c) 19:21, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Facepalm at my incorrect searches. My apologies. Redoing the searches (correctly this time, with conduct rather than conflict) I see that the book is noted/referenced in a number of other works, but it still doesn't look like the significant coverage is there. CtP (t • c) 16:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The arguments for keeping are absurd. That it is used by the group in its own schools does not make it notable ; that it is found in a very few libraries does not make it notable either. The article seems to have been written on the assumption that the author is sufficiently famous that all his works would be notable. That just is not the case, except in the view of his own disciples. The eds supporting these articles have apparently not understood the purpose of this encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 06:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Ironically, it's Abhidevananda that has convinced me that this book isn't notable. It's clearly important to him and the !keep voters, but as DGG is suggesting, showing that it is extremely important to his followers is not the same thing as establishing notability by our criteria. It looks as though this isn't the only one with similar problems. Dougweller (talk) 06:39, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Libraries: In case libraries is still an issue for anyone, see here (Open Library) and here (Canadian national library) and here (Australian national library) and here (German national library, titled "Yama & Niyama") and here (Italian national library, titled "Guida alla condotta umana") and here (Hungarian national library, titled "Az élet etikája") and here (Croatian National library, titled "Vodič za ljudsko ponašanje"). If any of the links I just gave don't work, just run a search with the title I provided in parentheses. --Abhidevananda (talk) 05:13, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment So what? These are national libraries, they contain a copy of every book published in their country, even the least notable. It proves nothing about the notability of this book. Dougweller (talk) 07:43, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment on comment: Finally we agree on something, Dougweller. A bunch of libraries is not a big deal. What we should be looking at is WP:NB. And, in that respect, notability is proven by the fact that this book meets not just one but three of the five criteria given there. Okay, maybe you don't agree with the arguments I presented in my table above. But let's look at your implicit position on those three criteria. With respect to Criterion 5, you do not think that Sarkar is sufficiently "historically significant". As I have not seen any authoritative list of persons covered by that criterion, I suppose that here we can only agree to disagree. With respect to Criterion 4, you think that accredited schools that rely on this book for their instruction must be ignored if those schools are associated with the organization that published this book. I don't see that exclusion anywhere in the notability guidelines, nor does such an exclusion strike me as reasonable. But perhaps you may like to have that guideline amended... just for cases where an author is also responsible for the establishment of hundreds of schools. That leaves Criterion 3. You seem to think that it does not matter how significant the contribution of this book is to a significant religious movement if that significant religious movement happens to be Ananda Marga. Perhaps you would like to add a blacklist to Criterion 3... either for books or for religious movements. However, in the absence of such a blacklist, I fail to see any rational basis for your position. --Abhidevananda (talk) 11:49, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- the level of historical significance needed is "so historically significant that a the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study." It's only a body of study within the very small number of schools in his own religious group. That doesn't affect his own notability, but it makes him not famous enough as an author to make all his books notable. The most recent religious figures I an think of as having that significance as authors, that of being famous far behind their community, and their works studied by people of all sorts of different traditions, is Gandhi and Martin Luther King, and we don't have all of their works, even all their major works. DGG ( talk ) 21:51, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- DGG, I already responded to that remark at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Discourses_on_Tantra_(Volumes_1_and_2), referenced for Criterion 5 of WP:NB in my table showing the three criteria met by this book. Criterion 5 does not state that the "author's life and body of written work" must be or even is currently "a common subject of academic study". It merely states that it "would be a common subject of academic study". In this context, "would be" expresses potential, either actualized or not yet actualized. I believe that "would be" makes more sense than "is", because we don't need to wait 50-100 years for academic study to play catch up. Gandhi and MLK? Do I detect a bias for
successfullyassassinated political activists who preached non-violence? Fortunately, the two known assassination attempts against Sarkar (one in his youth and another while in jail) both failed, thereby enabling him to make many more contributions in areas as diverse as agriculture, health, spiritual practices, philosophy, ethics, music, philology, history, and so on. --Abhidevananda (talk) 03:01, 24 February 2013 (UTC) no such thing as "unsuccessfully assassinated" <grin> --Abhidevananda (talk) 05:11, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- DGG, I already responded to that remark at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Discourses_on_Tantra_(Volumes_1_and_2), referenced for Criterion 5 of WP:NB in my table showing the three criteria met by this book. Criterion 5 does not state that the "author's life and body of written work" must be or even is currently "a common subject of academic study". It merely states that it "would be a common subject of academic study". In this context, "would be" expresses potential, either actualized or not yet actualized. I believe that "would be" makes more sense than "is", because we don't need to wait 50-100 years for academic study to play catch up. Gandhi and MLK? Do I detect a bias for
- Strong keep:notability of the book's author is evident. The article is sourced.--Soroboro (talk) 23:34, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The book's notability cannot be inherited from that of its author. The article may be sourced, but verifiability is distinct from notability. Also, how did you discover AfD in fifteen minutes? CtP (t • c) 23:46, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Chris, while I agree with you that the wording of Soroboro's vote is poor, you are definitely incorrect when you say: "The book's notability cannot be inherited from that of its author." Please look at WP:INHERITED, where it is clearly stated: "Three of the notability guidelines, for books, films and music, do allow for inherited notability in certain circumstances." In this case, one of the arguments for notability is: "The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable." Perhaps this was the point that Soroboro was making. If so, then I certainly agree with that. However, recognizing the somewhat subjective nature of this argument, I have also asserted Criteria 3 and 4 of WP:NB, both of which I consider to have been proven beyond any reasonable doubt. --Abhidevananda (talk) 03:26, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- My mistake for not examining the wording of WP:INHERITED more carefully; thank you for the corrction. I personally am not of the opinion that Sarkar fulfills point 5 of WP:BK, but yes, this may have been what Soroboro was getting at. CtP (t • c) 04:39, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Criterion 5 of WP:NB is somewhat subjective in nature, and so I merely state my opinion while respectfully acknowledging your differing opinion. However, Criteria 3 and 4 do not suffer from that drawback. As Sarkar established a global religious movement and also a global political movement, it is rather easy to demonstrate which of his books made a significant contribution to either of those (per Criterion 3). While many of his books do satisfy that criterion, I would not include all of them. For example, I would not include Sarkar's books of children's fiction, his books of short stories, his book on English grammar, of even his many books on philology under that category. But, without a doubt, Sarkar's book on ethics - A Guide to Human Conduct - does fall squarely within the ambit of Criterion 3. Furthermore, as Sarkar also established a global service network, comprising hundreds of accredited schools, it is rather easy to demonstrate which of his books are a subject of instruction in them (per Criterion 4). I have only cited two books in respect to the education network, and the book under discussion here - A Guide to Human Conduct - is one of them. --Abhidevananda (talk) 05:57, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Based on the policy-derived arguments, this seems to be a fairly clear consensus. No in-depth coverage found, no independent reviews, etc. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:26, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Human Society (Parts 1 and 2) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Self-published collection by Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar aka Shrii Shrii Anandamurti. Eleven citations to each volume per google scholar but no scholarly or independent discussion of the book. Volumes are listed in Inayatullah's _Understanding Sarkar_ but not discussed. Article states that the chapters that make up this work were reprinted in "Prout in a Nutshell", the article of which was recently redirected to Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar. Requesting redirection or deletion due to lack of notability and the low likelihood that notability could be established going forward. GaramondLethe 03:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: This nomination starts off with a false assertion. These books are not self-published. Furthermore, the fact that the material in them has been republished in the "PROUT in a Nutshell" series does not mean that the original books are somehow not notable by reverse inheritance (although I should mention here that I still consider the "PROUT in a Nutshell" series to be notable). As the nominator himself states, there are several citations in relation to these books. And the books are referenced on several Wikipedia pages, perhaps most notably at Law of Social Cycle. Hence, I believe that the notability of these books is adequately established, especially in light of the usual problems of systemic bias. I have no doubt that many relevant documents can be found with a painstaking search of Indian sources in English, Hindi, Bengali, and so on. However, given the fact that Wikipedia is not a full-time job for me and I am coping with nine (9) concurrent AfD nominations from this same nominator, not to mention questionable edits on other articles not yet nominated for deletion by him, I would prefer to forgo such a time-consuming exercise. -Abhidevananda (talk) 08:05, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Editor's comment: I am forced to repeat here what I said in innumerable AfD proposed by the same group of censors. This book is a part of the vast literary heritage of Shrii Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar and it's one of the various articles related with Sarkar, that I wrote on WP. Have we to prefer an encyclopaedia representing the various aspects of human knowledge or have we to continuosly propose all that we don't like/agree for deletion? It's very easy to delete an article but it's more difficoult to build, or constructively help to support/expand/improve it. As a relatively recent editor I ask me: is it more useful to see in WP some experienced editors (strengthened by their advanced procedural knowledge and by a discrete logistical support of a few others) engaged almost exclusively in the easy work of articles' deletion rather than in the more difficoult task of their creation and improvement? I hope you all will understand me if I express here my strong complaint but I don't really even know where to write it.--Cornelius383 (talk) 11:06, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep: for the reasons above.--Cornelius383 (talk) 11:06, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; "self published" seems like reasonable shorthand for something published by a press which exists to print that author's beliefs. Lacking independent sources, we can't build neutral articles about these topics. bobrayner (talk) 23:33, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- delete More in-world publishing, no evidence that anyone outside Ananda Marga cares. Mangoe (talk) 01:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep: an article to expand but not to delete.--Anta An (talk) 12:05, 15 February 2013 (UTC) — Anta An (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 13:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I was unable to find unbiased, independent material proving that this is in any way notable per Wikipedia criteria.--Zananiri (talk) 18:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep-sourced article of a notable topic/author.--Knight of Infinity (talk) 01:53, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable, which seems pretty obvious--I refer to all our prior discussions of related articles. The only real issue is whether we should redirect. Often I support a redirect from a less-than-notable book, but not in this case, because the title is so totally generic that the redirect would be useless. DGG ( talk ) 05:37, 22 February 2013 (UTC) .[reply]
- Delete - no one has shown evidence of notability for this book. This is one of a set of articles being staunchly defended by disciples of the author but there is not evidence of notability outside of his followers. Dougweller (talk) 06:48, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:12, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Tabaris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
the article is named after a region/street in beirut yet the body flaunts the doubtful history of an obscure family. the entire "article" is not referenced Eli+ 12:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The content is arguably a candidate for an A7 speedy, as material about individuals with no assertion of notability. That aside, the content also doesn't correspond in any logical way with the provided title, as noted by the nominator. There's really nothing here to salvage. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I would suggest that Kabbouche be deleted at the same time. It is very nearly identical content, created by the same editor. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:03, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Bangor University Hockey Club (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)
University sports cub that fails WP:NCOLLATH. No robust references at all. Refs provided are dead-links, own web site or trivial mentions. No notability and no assertion of any notability other than its existence. Velella Velella Talk 19:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. I'm not sure where a redirect would go. Bearian (talk) 00:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 11:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable university sports club, with a possible redirect to Bangor University#Student Life. I'd suggest deleting Bangor University Rowing Club and Bangor University F.C. for the same reason. Funny Pika! 14:06, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd go along with that. Bearian (talk) 20:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Eti 2000 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable company without any indication of deeper importance. Obviously, it has not been the subject of any significant coverage in reliable, independent media, so it clearly fails WP:CORP. --FoxyOrange (talk) 11:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails WP:CORP. Incidentally, it was mentioned in passing in one book I can find, but only as part of a list of available helicopters companies. Storkk (talk) 12:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This was an air taxi service that operated for less than a decade. This isn't the sort of significant achievement that gets you into an encyclopedia. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:05, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger One ping only 06:39, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Please use the list's talk page for any further discussion about renaming or converting to a list of lists. postdlf (talk) 16:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- List of cyclists (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)
Has no criteria. If it is ever complete it would be too big. BaldBoris 09:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Seems like the criteria is that the cyclists listed there are notable, per the plethora of blue links to Wikipedia articles. This list satisfies WP:LISTPURP. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I've updated the article's criteria by rewriting to: "This is a list of notable cyclists." Northamerica1000(talk) 10:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. But improve by evolving some criteria, and also use as source for sub-lists based on other criteria, as necessary. 'Wiki article' would be a valid initial criteria. Note - it is not the function of today's editors to decide that we will strangle an article at birth because If it is ever complete [it] would be too big. Such responsibility should fall to future custodians when it does become too big. Chienlit (talk) 10:39, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - this article name is insanely misleading. I'm a cyclist, so technically I should be there. This needs splitting into the various disciplines, otherwise even with a revised name, it will be approximately the size of China. Lukeno94 (talk) 12:09, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - It was created over 7 years ago and there hasn't been an agreed criteria for being a notable cyclist, it's just slowly been added to. Lists of cyclists should be split into nationality... By deleted this list nothing will be lost. Maybe moved to "Lists of cyclists", which would link to the articles in Category:Lists of cyclists. Also it should be renamed "List of road racing cyclists", see Category:Cyclists by discipline. BaldBoris 13:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep with editing and move to List of bicycle racers or List of competitive cyclists. A list of notable professional and amateur cyclists who competed in road and track races (possibly divided by discipline) is a good thing. And most of the names seem to be notable cycle racers. On the other hand hand, leaving in bicycle makers and anyone else who's ever got on a bike (I half-expected to find David Cameron in there somewhere) is just too vague to belong in one article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:45, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep At 7K the list is nothing like too big and even if it does grow to be large this is not a problem because Wikipedia is not paper. Warden (talk) 18:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The list itself is incredibly useful. The question is more whether some of the individuals are worthy of notability. I'm in favor of keeping, but editing its contents.Kabirat (talk) 15:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Secret account 16:43, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Miami Street Legends Movie (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 perhaps a forthcoming YouTube video or an already filmed movie with no independent coverage whatsoever. Either way, fails a whole suite of Wikipedia:Notability criteria. Shirt58 (talk) 08:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - This documentary seems to have attracted no notice in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 18:06, 19 February 2013 (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)
- Delete per WP:ADVERT and lacking content verifiability in any reliable source. When an article author includes the phrase "This one is a must see. Movie Teasers for Miami Street Legends can be found online.", we have an obvious case of WP:PROMOTION. The article also shares "Production date for documentary started in 2005, the first teasers & trailers for the movie were released in 2012 online." We lack coverage of a production started in 2005, and lack coverage of "first teasers and trailers", and no evidence that it has been released. This has it fail WP:NFF... and makes this one, at best, TOO SOON. I suggest that the author be sent to WP:PRIMER and WP:TOOSOON to gain a bit of clue. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Secret account 16:46, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- James Edson Berto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Subject has one top-tier fight; does not meet WP:NMMA. No WP:SIGCOV to suggest GNG. Mkdwtalk 08:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Subject does not meet WP:NMMA, fails WP:GNG. --LlamaAl (talk) 13:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails WP:NMMA and WP:GNG. Family lineage isn't enough to establish notability. Luchuslu (talk) 14:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:NMMA with only one top tier fight and fails WP:GNG since all coverage appears to be routine sports reporting. Papaursa (talk) 05:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:NMMA since he only has one top tier fight, and he doesn't have enough non-routine coverage to pass WP:GNG. CaSJer (talk) 20:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:17, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Tony Sylvester (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 top tier fights (does mention he fought a Strikeforce opponent and lost). Does not meet WP:NMMA. No WP:SIGCOV to suggest GNG. Mkdwtalk 07:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Subject does not meet WP:NMMA, fails WP:GNG. --LlamaAl (talk) 13:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No top-tier fights, one reference. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMMA. Luchuslu (talk) 14:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No top tier fights and no significant non-routine coverage, thus failing both WP:NMMA and WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 05:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It's obvious. Fails WP:NMMA and WP:GNG.Master Sun Tzu (talk) 01:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:17, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Tim Persey (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 top-tier fights and does not meet WP:NMMA. No WP:SIGCOV to establish notability in GNG. Mkdwtalk 07:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Subject does not meet WP:NMMA, fails WP:GNG. --LlamaAl (talk) 13:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No top-tier fights, one reference. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMMA. Luchuslu (talk) 14:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete With no top tier fights he doesn't meet WP:NMMA. There is no significant independent coverage of him to show he meets WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 05:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No top tier fights. Fails WP:NMMA and WP:GNG.Master Sun Tzu (talk) 01:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. Deleted per agreement of article creator - and as the article creator has been confirmed as a sockpuppet. The Bushranger One ping only 14:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Mike Stumpf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Subject has 2 UFC fights but does not meet WP:NMMA. Due to successive losses it's likely he will not receive a third top-tier fight. Mkdwtalk 07:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per nomination. When I originally created the article, I thought Elite XC was a top tier organization, so my mistake. However if he fights in a top tier org like Bellator should he be cut or somehow have one last fight in the UFC, then the article should be recreated. GladiusHellfire (talk) 22:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your gracious support of the AfD as the article creator. If he gains another top-tier MMA fight I will assist in the re-creation. Mkdwtalk 23:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ironholds (talk) 22:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ravi Singh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Delete - Non-notable per WP:BIO. Article falls under WP:NOTADVERTISING. Additional details soon. Banchasana (talk) 06:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Seems like you have something personal against this guy, but either way, the topic is now up for discussion. Please make sure that your comments remain neutral. I can see from the notice on the Biography of Living Persons Noticeboard that you say this article was posted with "slight" revisions. That is a gross understatement. I was actually working on improving the article but it was deleted before I could finish and post the edits. I would request that an administrator restore the deleted version so that people can see that it is more than a "slight" revision. The previous article reaked of promotion. It was basically an article about the company Election Mall, using the media surrounding Singh as a cover. It was horribly written and lacked sourcing. The current article is a "substantial" improvement and those discussing it here can see the major changes if the previous one is restored somewhere to look at. --Plainscallops (talk) 14:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - has sufficient sources of sufficient quality to meet WP:GNG. Could be toned down a bit, but doesn't seem especially over-promotional. Yworo (talk) 07:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 February 15. Snotbot t • c » 07:09, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Can't see anything promotional here. Rather dry, but otherwise okay.--Auric talk 12:39, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The references do not support the material; the exaggeration implied by them makes this article too promotional to be kept. "Outstanding 50 Asian Americans in Business" is not a notable award. Being recognized as a "rising star" = "not yet notable. I see no evidence that he is a pioneer in the use of electronic campaigning,besides his own assertions. The example that he was widely quoted by the media shows him as one of several figures quoted, not as the main topic or even most prominent person cited. Similarly for the cover story in USA weekend--it may be a cover story, but it wasn't about him. He has not been a part time professor, a title that does not exist, he has been an adjunct instructor at 2 community colleges. The claims rely mostly on his own campaign statements. I suppose he does technically meet 2RS=N, but the article needs to be started over, with only those facts which have been reliably reported by sources not merely copying his PR. merely that he got some press talking about it. By our usual rules for failed legislative candidates, he's not notable. Sustaining this article means changing from reliable sources show notability, to any sort of sources however promotional show notability. DGG ( talk ) 10:57, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Many of the sources simply do not support the claims. "Singh is attributed as being the first person to bring online politics into the cloud." The CSPAN video does not make any reference to this statement. "Ravi Singh was the first Indian-American student body president at a major American University." This statement is not true -- Naveen Jindal was a student body president of UT Dallas in 1992. "During his time as student body president, he was selected to speak at the 1993 Parliament of the World’s Religions in Chicago" -- nothing in the article points to "selected". The Asianweek article is essentially a PR release published before his legislative race. Banchasana (talk) 15:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You nominated the article for deletion. That was your !vote. You don't get a second one, though of course you may make additional comments. The usual way to do that is to include Comment at the beginning of the line, not an apparent additional !vote. Yworo (talk) 19:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the information. Added the appropriate labels. Banchasana (talk) 21:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You nominated the article for deletion. That was your !vote. You don't get a second one, though of course you may make additional comments. The usual way to do that is to include Comment at the beginning of the line, not an apparent additional !vote. Yworo (talk) 19:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - As the creator of this article, I will obviously vote to keep it. However, I will remain neutral with my rationale using Wikiepdia rules to support my keep. For general notability guidelines, the sources must be significant coverage that is indpenedent from the subject. While it has been said that some of the sources are not ABOUT him (such as the cover article for USA Weekend). No, the article was not specifically about him, the article was about elections and it featured him as part of the article. This is not a slight mention but an entire section of the article featuring him and his company. Not sure how much more notable to get unless they title the article "Forget about everyone else, this one is about Ravi Singh." There are other significant references including Outlook Magazine, the Chicago Tribune, the Daily Herald, Asian American Busienss, etc. He was even in the Australian and Politico. These are notable publications and being in them shows significant coverage. While some have pointed out that he is NOT the pioneer of the campaigns on the cloud, there is failure to point out that he WAS the first person to graduate with a turban and it was because of him that the legislation allowing such was enacted. He is also the first to run for such office in Illinois (although he would fail notability as a failed politician, he would be notable for the accomplishments during the campaign). Not sure what else to say other than I feel that based on needed significant and indepednet coverage, the references show it and therefore I believe keeping the article is appropriate. Also, if you look at the original article that was previously deleted, you will see that it was a blatant promotion. The current article is substantially different. There is one section dedicated to his company, but it is fact based and non-promotional. --Plainscallops (talk) 14:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Trivial real accomplishments, extensive efforts at publicity. We aren't a vehicle for that, or at least we should not be. DGG ( talk ) 21:35, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect both to June 2006 abduction of U.S. soldiers in Iraq. According to our usual practices, we would not make a separate article here. I personally might disagree with that, but the consensus for our practice is clear & my personal view irrelevant. DGG ( talk ) 05:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Kristian Menchaca (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)
Individual whose death is tragic and sacrifice in the service to his country is commendable, probably does not meet our guidelines for inclusion per WP:BIO1E and WP:NOTMEMORIAL, same goes for Thomas Lowell Tucker. These two soldiers are notable for the event: June 2006 abduction of U.S. soldiers in Iraq. EricSerge (talk) 05:01, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've tagged the second article as part of this AfD. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect both to June 2006 abduction of U.S. soldiers in Iraq, the event that they were (tragically) involved in. No notability outside of the WP:ONEEVENT. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect both as above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep both. There are quite a few articles about POWs, under similar circumstances, on Wikipedia that have not been marked for deletion, such as Keith Maupin and Ahmed Kousay al-Taie. Both of the articles that have been marked for deletion have a wealth of informative content and are properly sourced. On a personal note, I have put a lot of work and effort into both of these articles, hoping to make them into the best articles that they can possibly be, and would be dismayed if they were to be suddenly erased off of Wikipedia. See: On the other hand, if an event is of sufficient importance, even relatively minor participants may require their own articles, for example Howard Brennan, a witness to the JFK assassination. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 11:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The question you have to ask yourself is: are these men any more notable than anyone else who has been killed in war? And if so, why? I can see no reason why they should be. Deaths of westerners in war today are heavily reported in the media. Deaths of non-westerners generally are not. Even deaths of westerners generally were not before modern times. So, another question. Are westerners killed in war today more notable than non-westerners killed and in war and are they more notable than people killed in, say, the Second World War? The answer, clearly, is no. Therefore, generally, we have to say that people killed in war who are only "notable" for being killed in war are not notable enough for their own articles on Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Necrothesp, what makes this article (and the others) unique is that they are articles on soldiers/marines who were captured (held as POWs) and were missing for a time. That is what makes them unique to the other deaths in both the Iraq War and Afghanistan War. Not sure what the rant about westeners/non-westerners has to do with this (unless there were other servicemen from non-western countries involved in these wars that were captured and executed also). I say keep all of these articles.Redjacket3827 (talk) 18:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No rant whatsoever, thank you very much, just a statement. So, let me get this straight, would you advocate having an article on every serviceman throughout history who has been captured and executed? If not, why not? Why is this more significant than soldiers who've just been killed in combat? Are soldiers who are captured and executed more notable than those who are shot in battle? Why? My point is simply that certain editors seem to believe that because these men were Americans and were executed, they are somehow more notable than other soldiers (American or otherwise) who have been killed in other ways. I'd like it to be explained why this should be the case. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, Redjacket3827. This incident was very big news in the United States when it happened seven years ago. Granted, obviously, there shouldn't be an article about every casualty of war, especially if they haven't been reported widely. However, I believe these two articles warrant a spot on Wikipedia, due to their notably, as a result of not only being killed, but the manner of their deaths, in which they were captured, tortured, executed, mutilated and had videos posted of the entire ordeal on the internet, which was covered widely by both the American and international press. Best regards. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 00:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed they do warrant a spot - in the article on the incident, as they have no "presence", as it were, outside of the incident. There is no encyclopedic information on them bar that on the incident itself, so, per WP:ONEEVENT, redirecting their names to the article on the incident is what is called for here. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Necrothesp, what makes this article (and the others) unique is that they are articles on soldiers/marines who were captured (held as POWs) and were missing for a time. That is what makes them unique to the other deaths in both the Iraq War and Afghanistan War. Not sure what the rant about westeners/non-westerners has to do with this (unless there were other servicemen from non-western countries involved in these wars that were captured and executed also). I say keep all of these articles.Redjacket3827 (talk) 18:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The question you have to ask yourself is: are these men any more notable than anyone else who has been killed in war? And if so, why? I can see no reason why they should be. Deaths of westerners in war today are heavily reported in the media. Deaths of non-westerners generally are not. Even deaths of westerners generally were not before modern times. So, another question. Are westerners killed in war today more notable than non-westerners killed and in war and are they more notable than people killed in, say, the Second World War? The answer, clearly, is no. Therefore, generally, we have to say that people killed in war who are only "notable" for being killed in war are not notable enough for their own articles on Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:19, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sumi Das (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)
Poorl sourced Piku 15:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 18:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Think worth keeping myself. Scifi451 (talk) 05:44, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 04:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - she's a reporter so there's obviously plenty of news coverage by her. But there's not a lot of coverage about her which is what we need for WP:GNG. I can't see that she meets any of the creative criteria. Stalwart111 08:38, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteShe is a non-notable reporter. Strongly recommend for deletion Jussychoulex (talk) 18:51, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. The Bushranger One ping only 18:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ben Willmore (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, the only references I found are already listed here, nothing else. I don't nominate articles very often so if I am doing this wrong, please correct me to the right way. Antonio Sugar Head Martin here 21:32, 31 January, 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 18:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I have found citations that I believe show the subject is notable. I'm improving the article and using reliable sources to back up statements made in the article. AuthorAuthor (talk) 17:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 04:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - AuthorAuthor's work has improved the article greatly, though I'm not seeing the relevance of source 2. But the others are just enough for me. Stalwart111 08:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Good point; I moved source 2 from references to external links. Thank you. AuthorAuthor (talk) 09:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No worries - I just couldn't find any mention of him on that page. But search for his name on that site and you get a few results. Stalwart111 09:39, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am unclear as to what standard we should apply to judge Willmore's notability. The first sentence says he is a photographer, but nothing in the article suggests that he is notable as a photographer. Willmore does seem to have notability as an author of Photoshop books, but that point is not clearly made in the article. TheMindsEye (talk) 15:39, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've edited the article to make it more clear. AuthorAuthor (talk) 19:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. What Stalwart(111) said. -- Hoary (talk) 09:32, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was DELETE. Sources do not prove notability, especially after two precious AfDs generated a consensus of delete. SouthernNights (talk) 15:33, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Mort Fertel (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 declined G4 as I consider this article to be different enough from the last deleted version. I'm not convinced about the notability, however, and am bringing this for consensus in discussion. Peridon (talk) 19:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Thank you, first I'll copy my explanation from the talk page here: "I have no idea what this page looked like before, but I do know that when I reviewed the deletion debates from before many of the references I used here were not used, especially as they didn't exist yet. This person has been featured in major newspapers, and written about in major published books as an expert in the field. The author has been written about extensively in the press, far more so that a normal author. Sources 1-3, 6 and 12 exhibit clear depth of coverage, and sources 7 and 8 clearly show that his work is discussed by other major books. Minor amounts of detail have been taken from personal bios, which can be removed if necessary. I do not see at all how this article is one of someone that is "clearly not notable" enough to have a Wikipedia page." None of the sources mention Fertel in passing (save the smaller mentions in the books), and each discuss him as an expert. Sources also come from a range of places--relationship books, popular magazines, newspapers, etc. Jeremy112233 (talk) 19:20, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
probably keep I see him referred to with some frequency in other books in the field, though it's hard to say exactly how seriously to take this. This book, at any rate, characterizes him as "a recognized authority".Mangoe (talk) 19:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not too sure how seriously to take that book as a reference - Amazon list it as a Kindle edition, with Alliance Publishing as the publisher. From what I can see, that's a self-publishing outfit. Could be wrong... Look it up. Peridon (talk) 21:52, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Striking !vote in light of other comments. Mangoe (talk) 11:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The Ronnie Lee book says the same thing as well, and is not a self-published work. Jeremy112233 (talk) 16:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As did the Toronto Sun here. Jeremy112233 (talk) 17:19, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Striking !vote in light of other comments. Mangoe (talk) 11:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not too sure how seriously to take that book as a reference - Amazon list it as a Kindle edition, with Alliance Publishing as the publisher. From what I can see, that's a self-publishing outfit. Could be wrong... Look it up. Peridon (talk) 21:52, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same reason as the previous 2 articles that were deleted via AfD... no reliable references that go into any detail. Jeremy112233 says refs 1-3, 7 and 8 "exhibit clear depth of coverage". Can't see one ref as it is behind a paywall, but the others are book reviews or quotes by Fetel. None go into any depth of coverage about him. The books in refs 5 and 6 are self-published as West Bow publishing offers only self-publishing services. For Mangoe's book, Alliance Publishing Group specialized in "Chamber of Commerce and other lifestyle publications. Our resume includes numerous Chamber titles in Alabama as well as PORTICO Birmingham and other specialty publications, brochures, maps and directories." They will also help you self-publish your book. So, we have a person that has self-published a book, is mentioned in other self-published books, is quoted in some publications. Clearly fails WP:AUTHOR and GNG. Bgwhite (talk) 08:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've added four news sources to the page to try to help alleviate concerns about Fertel's notability. Among them are an articles that focus entirely on Fertel in the Baltimore Sun, which states that the Mayor of Baltimore announced the last week of October 2004 as "Marriage Fitness Week" due to Fertel's work, and quotes from Fertel in the Toronto Sun, Chicago Tribune, and the Rocky Mountain News. That now makes 8 different major newspapers that have covered Fertel, which I believe is more than enough to pass WP:GNG. Jeremy112233 (talk) 17:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 17:53, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 04:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Pearson Peacekeeping Centre. Arguments to keep have been adequately refuted, there were no objections to merging which is preferable to deletion. J04n(talk page) 12:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Alex 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)
insufficient notability according to WikiProject_Military_history/Notability_guide#People Johndowning (talk) 02:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep His notability is not as a soldier, but as a military analyst. This is just one example of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:56, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The article quoted is barely three paragraphs and appears in an online website associated with a marginal, freely distributed local daily. Furthermore, the subject is merely providing a quote on a timely news item. This is not sufficient notability under any circumstances, and definitely does not support a military biography. You will need much more than this to meet WP notability. Please provide significant articles where the subject is either the author or the subject of the analysis. Johndowning (talk) 14:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Notable as a military expert, as Cullen328 says. And, as the winner of Pearson Medal of Peace, passes WP:ANYBIO; note all the bluelinks on that award page. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I went into this expecting to find significant coverage of the subject per WP:BIO, but could not (Googling is complicated by the commonness of the name, but ...) You do find short quotes by the subject quite frequently, but that is not uncommon for people working at a defense thinktank and does not connote notability in and of itself. With that in mind, I examined WorldCat for his works, and found that they are thinly held [5], [6], [7], and had trouble finding significant in-depth reviews of his works, so he does not seem to pass WP:AUTHOR. I checked on Google Scholar, and so far as I can see, that gives an h-index of 7 or so, which is far short of the standard required by WP:PROF. The Pearson Medal appears to be an award commonly given to notable people, that does not make the award in itself notable. RayTalk 18:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 04:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not notable. When one of the two main references proving notability is a Who's Who entry, that indicates the exact opposite.--SouthernNights (talk) 20:24, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Upmerge to Pearson Peacekeeping Centre. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:37, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:24, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Namami Krsnasundaram (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)
Another self-published book by Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar (here writing as Shrii Shrii Anandamurti) that has failed to gain notability outside of Sarkar's Ananda Marga organization. The two citations to reliable sources are a brief quotation and an unannotated listing in a bibliography. No independent discussion of the book exists in the popular or scholarly press and there's no indication that any such discussion will be forthcoming. Recommend deletion.
Instead of several non-notable articles, the editors might want to create a Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar (bibliography) page where each of these books would be listed. GaramondLethe 04:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: an article to improve (but not to delete) of an important indian author.--Anta An (talk) 08:01, 15 February 2013 (UTC) — Anta An (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Delete No evidence this meets our criteria for notability. A bibliography article would also be inappropriate. If anyone wanst this book kept they need to show notability - find some sources that meet our criteria at WP:RS and discuss the book in some depth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 15:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; notability problems. bobrayner (talk) 14:26, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I have been unable to locate conclusive evidence of notability per Wikipedia criteria.--Zananiri (talk) 18:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Scott Bolkan (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)
He did make an appearance for the Portland Timbers in a U.S. Open Cup match in 2008, but his appearance was against an amateur club. That means he still fails WP:NFOOTBALL. More importantly, he fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. – Michael (talk) 02:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 02:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 10:09, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - he has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage in reliable sources, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - GNG and NFOOTY failure. Fenix down (talk) 08:58, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. Govvy (talk) 12:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Secret account 05:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ijin Material (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)
Can't really see anything to indicate in-depth notability on a quick search and sources check. Article is excessively promotional and unsourced, and may be copyvio from somewhere. It was certainly created by someone whose ID suggests a clear conflict of interest. Mabalu (talk) 02:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: As well as being promotional it seems to be a copyright violation from [8]. The text used to be closer, but wikipedians have corrected some of the spelling problems in the original - "artisinal", "principle", and "aswell" - something the commercial site still hasn't managed to do! - Ttwaring (talk) 03:05, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm beginning to wonder if I should have nominated this so quickly. A more careful search shows substantial published coverage in 1, plus 2 appears to have some coverage. The designer, Philip Goss, has presence on some of the more reputable (but still not really RS) blogs such as Denimaniac, which does give food for thought. Certainly no problem with this being deleted as copyvio, though, with no prejudice against a properly sourced recreation. Mabalu (talk) 12:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Secret account 05:22, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Habanero.NET (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article is unreferenced and I find no reliable sources to indicate that this is notable by our standards. Drmies (talk) 01:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I found many sources for a Habanero collaborative framework but could find no significant sources for Habanero.NET independent of Habanerolabs/Chillisoft. Unless I've missed something, this topic would seem to fail both general WP:GNG and software WP:NSOFTWARE notability guidelines. --Mark viking (talk) 04:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Another Enterprise Application Framework for the .NET platform that provides tools for rapid application development using agile techniques. I gather this has something to do with programming computers, but the article is couched in vague, promotional buzzwords. No showing of significant effects on technology, history, or culture. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Not Delete Habanero.net is notable for a couple of things. For one, it is listed in this Wikipedia article [9]. for another, it is a significant resource for .NET developers of database driven applications as an open source alternative to the Primary Microsoft ORM(Object Relational Mapping) technology. I do understand the article's short comings in that the technology is mostly one by one company however it is open source so it is not a single company product. For example the technology, JAVA, is primarily a single company technology but I don't see requests for deletion of decriptions of that. I also understand the short coming of the articles use of technology specific nominclature, which was mistaken for promotional buzzwords. There could be edits of the article to use more common terms or include a glossery of nominclature. for disclosure I am a DOT NET developer and have nothing to do with and know little about the company that open sourced this technology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hricker (talk • contribs) 18:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:27, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Kristopher Tate (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 the basic requirements listed in WP:BIO. This page was nominated for deletion together with a company related to Mr. Tate, and was subsequently deleted, in 2006. afd The page was recreated out of process in 2007 and after a brief revert war (making it a redirect to Zoomr, reinstating the article), the article seems to have stuck. In the meanwhile, Mr. Tate can only be said to have become more obscure - his two companies, his claim to fame (and notability), have become defunct, and it seems likely that a user with a COI has been editing the page, including links to Mr. Tate's linkedIn account, and 2 videos posted on his YouTube feed, showing him being interviewed by Japanese TV. Brooooood (talk) 01:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Secret account 05:24, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- D. J. MacRandal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unsourced BLP and I can't find anything reliable at all online about him, under his abbreviated name or full name Daniel Joseph MacRandall. The RSUA is a small, barely notable organisation and I don't believe Presidents of it should be automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article. if he is still alive he has clearly been active for over 40 years so if someone can find offline sources I'll withdraw this nomination. But its of little use unsourced! Sionk (talk) 01:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 01:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- The sole justification for this article seems to be that it leads to therei beign another blue link, rathe than a red link in the list template on this page, and presumably an associated list article. We hear nothing of what he did except serving asd president of the NI branch of RIBA (with its own name). To take another profession, I would expect us to have articles on presidnets of the Law Society, but not on presidents of the Birmingham Law Society. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:37, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 09:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:09, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Some brief directory mentions (ex. Architects from Northern Ireland) can be founded in the GBooks hits here, as long as you ignore the Wikipedia mirrors. Can also be found in National Archives for some architecture work. Per Peterkingiron, president of RSUA doesn't establish much. Unable to find significant secondary coverage. —Theopolisme (talk) 23:07, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. While redirects are cheap, we don't redirect one random book series to a huge company that publishes thousands of books, and consensus is clear this don't meet GNG. Secret account 05:26, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Poison Apple Books (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete. promotional, no sources provided appears to fail notability guidelines[[10]] no google hits or awards won. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:58, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I don't think that this was meant to be promotional as much as it was something added by a fan of the series. I found two very brief reviews, but that's not enough for me to think that this shows enough notability for the series. I might recommend a redirect to Scholastic Corporation as they're the company that released them, although I'm not really sure what that will serve.Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 07:35, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ace of Base song huh? Careful you're dating yourself! Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Scholastic Corporation Multiple authors so redirect to the publisher. Conducting a WP:BEFORE search reveals almost no reliable sources. Does not seem to have the significant coverage required for WP:NBOOK. Mkdwtalk 08:40, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I understand the problem here. This page is really just a stub, but the series actually has *many* hits on Google. There are solid reviews on GoodReads.com. I think the series meets the notability requirements, but clearly the page needs improvement. dwmc (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The main problem we're seeing are reliable and independent sources. Having lots of google results does not show that. Furthermore, GoodReads.com are user submitted reviews and should be excluded as reliable sources as with any user submitted content or even content that is not independent of the writer and publisher. Mkdwtalk 07:27, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I've searched for the series and a few titles individually, and I'm just not seeing any detailed coverage, only blogs and user-contributed reviews. Not notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The books are each of them in between 500 and 600 libraries, according to worldcat. They're from one of the most important publishers of children's books. Neither asre formal criteria, but library holding that large indicate a successful series and enough of an indication of notability DGG ( talk ) 05:22, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. consensus is clear enough after 2 relistings DGG ( talk ) 05:19, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Quiet Monkey Fight (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 performing group, fails WP:GNG and notability. Requires more significant coverage in reliable sources than a puff piece on thestranger.com to meet GNG. Previously deleted in 2009 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quiet Monkey Fight. -- Wikipedical (talk) 07:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. consensus is clear enough. No need for further relistings DGG ( talk ) 05:18, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Generator Rex (toy line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unsourced list of toys that doesn't seem at all notable. Sort of reads like an ad. Paper Luigi T • C 08:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no sources and no notability make this an easy call. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:38, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I copied this page to Wikialpha for storage. Thanks.Mathewignash (talk) 03:41, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Smerge to parent article. Hobit (talk) 13:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. No prejudice against recreation if notability is shown better at a later date. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Cedric Smith (producer) (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 producer/writer/session musician. Worked with several notable artist but appears to fail the GNG on his own. Can find little to no coverage of the subject in Independent reliable sources. Article was created by an editor who admits to creating promotional articles in exchange for "tips". Ridernyc (talk) 16:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Open_Invitation#Track_listing - All of his work is allegedly from 2011 and 2012 and mostly as writing or producing with, apparently, no significant coverage despite multiple detailed Google News searches including the artists. However, I found this which mentions his background (hometown and early experience with music) and work with some of the artists listed and some different ones such as Big Sean, Zardi Cortez and Vitaa. It seems he is best known for that Tyrese album at this time so redirecting would leave the doors open for a future article. SwisterTwister talk 21:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It appears that his work is notable as music producer, musician, and songwriter. His works are best known with artist Tyrese. Tyrese album received a Grammy nomination for Open Invitation#Tracklisting ([11]) in which Cedric Smith was a co-writer. He should be noted as upcoming songwriter in which he has been Grammy nominated for works done on Tyrese Open Invitation#Tracklisting. User talk:3sixtymusic 2013-01-27T05:39:34
- Technically the Best Rap Grammy is an artist award. Songwriters and producers get nothing from the Grammys for that. So He has worked on a nominated album but has not been nominated. We also still need reliable sources that cover the subject. Ridernyc (talk) 07:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete without prejudice for recreation if he gains coverage in the future. Simply working on a grammy nominated album is insufficient for notability nor does a redirect seem approrpiate in this particular case -- Whpq (talk) 17:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:58, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:06, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Producer is noted as songwriter listed Open Invitation#Tracklisting User:3sixtymusic 23:10, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- He was the songwriter for one song and he has only received significant attention for the Tyrese album so far. Being a songwriter for one Tyrese Gibson song doesn't make him notable for a Wikipedia article because there are several non-notable or one-time songwriters. There isn't much notability with the other artists either. Redirecting is better than deleting it because it leaves the window open for a future article. SwisterTwister talk 20:41, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. No consensus following three relistings. However also no prejudice against a renomination, on account of that same lack of discussion. The Bushranger One ping only 18:54, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Samuel Friedman Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There's a conspicuous lack of independent coverage in reliable secondary sources. We have three links to what are more or less primary sources (1, 2, 3), a pair of press releases (4, 5) and an advertising campaign (6). - Biruitorul Talk 16:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Biruitorul, part of the reason for creating the page involved the fact that typing in Samuel Friedman leads to 4 irrelevant alternatives involving indiviual(s) named Samuel Friedman (or a close variant of it), none of whom established this Foundation. This Foundation was set up for two reasons, to promote study within the Jewish community, and to give an annual Award to the Danish people for their assistance to Jewish people during World War 2. There are no other foundations that do this, and the award is unique in this regard. There are also other Wiki pages that would link to this page if it remains. It is not possible to link to Samuel Friedman alone, for the reasons stated beforehand. It would be nice to be able to link recipients of the Samuel Friedman Rescue Award to the correct page, which won't happen if this page is deleted.
Sources: links 1, 2, and 3 are there simply to establish the existence and work of the Foundation in the Buffalo area. I am inclined to think that the Western New York Grantmakers Association is an independent body with no stake in "promoting" the Foundation, they simply mentioned it in their research. Two other links are from Universities, Yeshiva and Buffalo, where academics have received their awards, and I do not think those are press releases that could be expected to say much more than they did. I have seen numerous other University citations that have been allowed as independent sources that establish facts. I also think that sources from the collections of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (http://collections.ushmm.org/search/catalog/vha20423) to establish the identity of Samuel Friedman are reliable.
I am not sure what other types of sources you would require, but if you can suggest some I will try and find them, or expand the article further. Ybidzian (talk) 22:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Further sources added. Please KEEP, this Award is an important one to it's recipients, and unique in nature. Ybidzian (talk) 12:57, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:06, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. It is sometimes a toss-up whether the article should be on the company, or the CEO, but it seems clear in this case that the company is better known. DGG ( talk ) 05:16, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Rohith Bhat (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 issue; though the company was mentioned in some news items, that does not make the CEO too notable GDibyendu (talk) 15:29, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GDibyendu (talk) 16:57, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 18:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:03, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not sufficiently notable.--Staberinde (talk) 17:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 15:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Danielle Mackey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:NN seems to have little to no notability, can't find any real references on google. I highly recommend deletion, but there might be enough data to not change this to a CSD. Jab843 (talk) 19:29, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless significant secondary sources can be provided to establish notability. Nightscream (talk) 22:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - But she has a modeling portfolio. Isn't that an exception to the GNG? Actually I did look though, and the best I could come up with is this from Joystiq. But I'm not sure how any of it could be used since it's just a series of synopses of her videos and nothing on her. And I can't really make out what her involvement with Maxim is all about. Possibly they were the ones who did her photoshoot, but again there's no information on the person that wasn't created by she herself. Also I checked Google Scholar and Highbeam and there's nothing usable there so don't bother. -Thibbs (talk) 02:44, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per basic criteria on WP:BIO. Sources have been added, subject is notably connected to multiple events. -- Netoholic @ 11:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually not bad. The TBS bio and the Rome Observer article are probably RSes and Gamesradar is listed as an RS at WP:VG/RS. If she wins this "King of the Nerds" thing then there will almost certainly be further RS coverage. Considering that the article seems to meet the minimum threshold of "multiple reliable sources", I say keep for now. -Thibbs (talk) 13:42, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Even with those, she is still a very minor e-celebrity. We do not have to document every single one, or even those with a few sources. Just the most important ones. Until she reaches that point, she shouldn't have an article. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The added sources have made it far closer to WP:NOTE. Nightscream (talk) 15:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Just another youtuber. Her being on a tv show doesn't warrant a Wikipedia page either, since not everyone on the show should get a page. It's not inherited. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:45, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not quite true. If the other people are only notable for the show, then the show page would be sufficient for documenting them. That's not the case with this subject, who is notable for multiple events/circumstances (not counting YouTube, since that is a self-source), so a dedicated article is appropriate per WP:BIO#Basic criteria. In other words, if we ignore the YouTube reference, her presence on 2 television shows and a Maxim contest would be enough, since they are independently mentioned in documented secondary sources. A page for the person is able to appropriately "bridge" the connection between these other events. -- Netoholic @ 09:28, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notability well established by multiple sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.72.55.119 (talk) 04:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC) — 71.72.55.119 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
No point in keeping. Just delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.205.68.26 (talk) 16:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. -- she seems to have several connections to notable events, both online and off. References are cited, and context is provided. Skotte (talk) 12:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of notability. 89.75.58.109 (talk) 14:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is documented notability — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.23.27.98 (talk) 15:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sourcing is not clear enough to justify an article on this topic; theses are, at best, iffy as sourcing. Having said that, I'll note that 'no google news or GHits' does not an argument make; I'd really appreciate it if nominators could put the effort into elucidating an actual reason why there is a problem and do more than ~2 minutes of research before hitting the AfD button. Ironholds (talk) 22:40, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Phantom Anonymity Protocol (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, no GNews, GHits appear not to be RS. GregJackP Boomer! 15:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:28, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 05:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article is bad, but I don't see a valid reason for a delete. The interest from LWN.net (see: [12]) and DEFCON is enough to convince me that it's worth keeping on Wikipedia. From what I have understood by watching the DEFCON's speech, Phantom Anonymity Protocol shares a lot of similitudes with I2P project. Toffanin (talk) 23:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:45, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep if not a copyvio. I removed the list in the details section, as it was a direct copy violation of the list on the Google phantom page. I don't know about the copyvio status of the rest of the content. Aside from copyvios, the LWN.net article counts as secondary coverage and the dragon project has resulted in a couple of theses about the protocol. Theses aren't peer-reviewed, but they are professor reviewed and have likely undergone scrutiny and fact-checking. I think these are sufficiently reliable to be considered an RS. Multiple reliable sources suggest that this topic is modestly notable. If the rest of the article isn't a copyvio, I would recommend keeping it. If it is a copyvio, best to start over. --Mark viking (talk) 04:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I still don't see how these sources add up to notability. The LW.net article is a good source for establishing notability. After that we havethe author of the protocol presenting at a conference. And that generated notability how? There is no coverage about it. Two student theses with no peer review does not count as significant academic interest. -- Whpq (talk) 11:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There isn't much said on it, because it mostly appears to be non-existent table napkin drawing level vaguely proposed technology. :) Nor does it appear to be developing any further, seems like it may be stillborn technology. The few webpages posted on it are becoming 404s. --Gmaxwell (talk) 00:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep-notable but references to be expanded.--Knight of Infinity (talk) 20:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Where would the reference expansion come from? I've looked and the coverage in reliable sources consist solely of the LW.net article noted above. Are you aware of any? -- Whpq (talk) 22:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. If it's kept, it should probably be moved to Phantom anonymity protocol, per WP:MOS. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 17:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Theclear consensus was delete. If it becomes possible to write an article on "Church in the 21st century" the website could be mentioned in a sentence or so, but that's hardly a merge, nor would a redirect be appropriate. DGG ( talk ) 05:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- C21 Online (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 special project by Boston College. No evidence of any WP:Notability. The main article, Church in the 21st Century, was deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church in the 21st Century--GrapedApe (talk) 13:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 05:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge -- Surely we do not allow articles about websites, unless they have very large usage figures indeed. However it appears to be an aspect of Church in the 21st Century - a program with an exceessive grandeloquent title, and should be merge there, if that article is kept. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:44, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually we have articles about websites if they meet WP:WEB. This requires coverage in reliable sources, and has nothing to do with usage figures. This website doesn't meet that standard though. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No evidence of coverage in reliable, independent sources - there's sources at Boston College and a few mentions on Catholic websites but not important ones. College newspapers/magazines might be reliable in some cases, but they're not sufficient to show notability. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment OK, seriously, how could the website of an organization that was deleted in AFD possibly be notable.--GrapedApe (talk) 00:54, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Secret account 03:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Laurens County Community Theater (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)
Organization fails to meet notability guidelines as established in WP:ORG which states that at least one regional, national, or international news source is necessary to establish an organization's notability-— this article, after more than three years, still has no citations and has received no coverage at the required levels. It appears that the article is largely a list of productions and casts, none of which are themselves notable (therefore are merely routine and trivial coverage) which makes the article appear to be self-promotional. Lastly, though the troupe competed for a regional award, it did not win that award and therefore fails to meet that notability criterion as well. Perhaps parts of the article should be placed under the article for Clinton, South Carolina. KDS4444Talk 20:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 02:03, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 02:03, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:01, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete dismally fails WP:ORG. of the 3 gnews hits, one is primary and the other is a small mention. LibStar (talk) 01:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails WP:ORG. EricSerge (talk) 18:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 18:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Get A Grip (book) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable book lacking Ghits and GNEWS of substance. Article created by publisher's marketing group. Fails WP:NOTBOOK. reddogsix (talk) 23:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no independent coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 19:42, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I'm unable to find evidence of this meeting WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. Gong show 18:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Does not meet the criteria for inclusion in the encyclopedia as it lacks significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:49, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Meh, delete. Googling News archives and Books with "Get A Grip" wickman paton turns up nothing worth mentioning. CtP (t • c) 18:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.