Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 December 27

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 26 December	28 December >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Speedy keep.SK 1 as nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments.(non-admin closure)Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:39, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Revolutionary Students Unity of Bangladesh

)

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

~~The article fails to establish~~

~~specifically for organisations. The article provides no sources, nor could I find any coverage in reliable sources in my own searches. Whpq (talk) 22:44, 27 December 2013 (UTC)~~[reply

]

Keep, the Bengali name 'বিপ্লবী ছাত্র মৈত্রী' gives some 20,000 google hits, none from wikipedia or its mirrors. The article is unreferenced at present, but the claim "It had a significant role during most of the recent progressive movements, notably the anti-Ershad people's movement and anti-Razakar movement under Jahanara Imam." is reliable. This is one of those articles for which there wasn't much material online when it was started in 2006, but could now be sourced and expanded properly. --Soman (talk) 03:06, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 04:01, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 04:01, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 04:02, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I will quite happily withdraw the nomination if you can point out some sources. -- Whpq (talk) 12:18, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, it seems there are two distinct RSUBs, one in the 1980s and one at present. my Bangla skills aren't that good, but some links:
- [1], November 2013, report on the Dinajpur district conference of RSUB, some names of leaders.
- [2], press coverage on protest organized by RSUB at
  Dhaka University
- [3], mentions participation of RSUB in protests in Jessore
- [4], gives some detail on founding of RSUB in the 1980s.
- [5], report on RSUB demonstration
- [6], another press report on the Dinajpur district conference 2013
- [7] press report on setting up of a RSUB branch in Marimapur
- [8], report on RSUB activity
- [9], interview with Hillol Roy
- [10], press coverage on 2012 Khulna district conference of RSUB
- [11], another report on 2013 Dinajpur conference
- [12], report, with photo, on inauguration of RSUB office somewhere.
- [13], statement about meeting/founding of RSUB?

etc., etc.. A Bengali-speaking editor could help to add links as references properly. But I think it's fair to say that RSUB is an organization that has notability in Bangladeshi media. --Soman (talk) 18:10, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination - It's difficult to gauge the sourcing via machine translation, but there is enough there to indicate a more concerted search by a person conversant in Bengali is likely to turn up sufficient sourcing to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 00:39, 29 December 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, remains unsourced and there are currently no hints at notability, therefore I believe we can delete it without relisting for another week.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WorldHeart

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

A CSD A7 was declined. being listed at NASDAQ may demonstrate significance, but no sources have been found that demonstrate compliance with Notability criteria at

WP:ORG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:55, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Speedy delete for noncompliance with Wikipedia's definition of notability, and for failing to assert notability. I disagree that being listed on NASDAQ is a claim of significance. This should have been deleted under
talk) 01:07, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Just to elucidate: 'may' and 'significance' were the operative words - on it's own, a Stock exchange listing is of no more value than an IMDB entry for a movie, all it does is prove that a company is public and exists. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:53, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 03:56, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 03:57, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 03:57, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: This article is one of around 62 mass produced from stock exchange listings. All either PRODed now, or those that have run their 7 days at AfD have been deleted. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:09, 31 December 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. Hardly overwhelming, but consensus is to keep.Mojo Hand (talk) 05:38, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anna James

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

Notable for what? Lady Lotus • talk 21:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:31, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:31, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:31, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There were sufficient online articles discussing her brand. She has also been commissioned by well known cellist
talk) 11:42, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak keep - the current article is very poor, cited to a hotchpotch of blogs and unreliable websites. A 2012 Evening Standard article misnames her(?) as Anne Jones! However, as Skylar Jean says, the press section of her website indicates she has been featured in a number of hard copy magazines. These need to be added to the article (though to argue she's notable because a cello she's painted as been used in a concert is farcical).

Article also needs renaming because, as someone has pointed out, it was incorrectly created by pasting on top of a disambiguation page in September 2013. Sionk (talk) 21:55, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The misnaming was certainly a clerical error and she is known for transforming antique furniture into contemporary art. The cello was just an example. International press recognition and past exhibitions were already added with additional sources. Article should be renamed "Anna James (artist)", other than that this inquiry is settled and the article should be KEPT.

talk) 10:19, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Weak keep The majority of the sources are mere mentions, there are plenty of fabulous artisans who have their work merely mentioned in major publications. If this article can be expanded to include more significant coverage (not just mere mentions) and remove the primary sources, there is potential for keep beyond this deletion discussion (aka not being nominated again). And as we all know, having a relationship with a handsome actor doesn't make one inherently notable :)
SarahStierch (talk) 18:07, 30 December 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 : Speedily deleted by

User: Amatulic. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 23:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Iruvitham

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

Blatant advert by the film's creator — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:41, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, a short article about an unreleased movie, with no reliable third-party references. Delete. (Originally
proposed for deletion by me.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 22:40, 27 December 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. Thanks everyone for participating. :) Please

SarahStierch (talk) 04:00, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Lane Henderson

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

I can't find any indication of independent, reliable sources that cover this subject.

HOWDY! 21:08, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:34, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article even admits that the subject isn't notable ("... may someday have name as recognizable as Elizabeth Jaramillo"). Most of the sources lend little or no support to any notability or substantive achievement in the field and there are next to no Ghits of any quality. This is the sort of article that gives Wikipedia a bad name. --gilgongo (talk) 23:45, 27 December 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. Thanks everyone for participating. :) Please

SarahStierch (talk) 04:00, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Doc Halo

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

Non-notable company sourced by local articles based on press releases . This too is a press release. Recently accepted from AfC, like so many press releases. DGG ( talk ) 21:02, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice to a well-sourced version being written if sources can be found that demonstrate notability. I've commented on the existing references on the article talk page. There is a hint that we should be able to find enough references to demonstrate notability, but even the original author, who used
WP:COI, didn't put them in. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 04:05, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 04:05, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 04:06, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 04:06, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This article sits somewhere between being about a company and about its product. There is minimal coverage as a company (mention in lists of start-ups); there is a bit more coverage of their software product, tending to new products coverage, but still too little to amount to in-depth
WP:RS coverage. AllyD (talk) 08:36, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Do Not Delete: I am the author of Doc Halo and I don't understand why it is being considered for deletion. I have provided several non-press release references and will be adding more now that the company is growing. I don't see why it matters if it is local coverage or not. Besides it is only a matter of time before bigger media outlets start talking about Doc Halo. Secure texting applications are becoming more popular every day and should be worth mentioning. For example, TigerText, which is similar to Doc Halo, has it's own Wikipedia page. And TigerText is using at least 2 press releases for references and is even using their own company as a reference. That doesn't seem fair and I think you all are being a little harsh on Doc Halo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 25.35 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 31 December 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 00:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Daykeeper

)

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

Completely unsourced article containing only trivia and originally about the Mayan calendar. This content could be merged into Maya calendar or just deleted. --Salimfadhley (talk) 13:35, 19 December 2013 (UTC) Salimfadhley (talk) 13:35, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MergeThis topic isn't noteibal for its own article however the information would be useful on the artical about the Maya calender.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 13:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This fairly reliable-looking source, which describes daykeepers in modern Maya society in detail, implies that the subject is quite notable. (The Mayan term is ajq'ij or ajk'ij apparently.) הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 14:24, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: see also Maya priesthood#Offices which mentions (briefly) the same concept as the 16th century Ah k'in and ibid.#The Mesoamerican Maya priesthood after the Conquest as the contemporary ajk'ij. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 14:29, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete. I don't care whether we keep or merge it, but we have substantial coverage in a book produced by University of New Mexico Press (Hasirpad's link), and that alone suggests that there's probably more. Merger is the only helpful option if we don't keep it as a separate article. Nyttend (talk) 15:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If merged, the appropriate target is probably Maya priesthood, where, as I mentioned "daykeepers" (by other names) are briefly discussed. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 18:23, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've notified WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the Americas to request their input. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 18:54, 19 December 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Delete as unsourced. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:44, 19 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]
- Pardon me, but unsourced articles (except for BLPs) are not deleted; unsourceable ones are. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 23:53, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and source it then. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:55, 19 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Delete as
WP:BLOWITUP. -- 101.119.14.226 (talk) 00:36, 20 December 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, Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:37, 27 December 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) 02:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Cutless

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

Notability about the subject is contested. No reliable or reputable sources give support to claims of notability in this article. Lacks verification of alleged works with celebrities in media outlets (e.g. NBC.com). All links lead nowhere except to WP and can't be used as Wikipedia references. This article should then be deleted because it doesn't meet Wikipedia's Notability guidelines. Ubot16 (talk) 18:56, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk to me What did he do now? 20:29, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk to me What did he do now? 20:29, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete per nom. Very little coverage in reliable sources, and one of the links is dead (going to ascap.com and searching for Joey Cutless doesn't return any results).

talk to me What did he do now? 20:32, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:38, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep References updated with live links and tested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robwilson7 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:User "Robwilson7" appears to be a one purpose account and if not a sock of Joey Cutless himself then it should at least be noted that he emptied both the AfD deletion tag in the article and this discussion page. He was also instructed to stop inserting meaningless WP links as references (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joey_Cutless&diff=prev&oldid=587051744). Ubot16 —Preceding undated comment added 16:45, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I removed all the "internal" refs. That still leaves 19 non-WP refs - it's now up to the community to decide if they are

WP:COI states that COI editors can "add reliable sources" Ronhjones ^(Talk) 19:59, 23 December 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, Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:36, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have removed all the "internal" refs and baseless claims which didn't even have any external links to support them. Now you can determine for yourselves what I noticed about this article, it has no legs to run on. Ubot16 (talk) 20:40, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The existing refs do not discuss the subject: a requirement of notability. I cannot find any sources to support that the subject is notable. http://istandardproducers.com/interviews/new-interview-joey-cutless-tv-film/ exists, but the source does not meet
WP:RS as the site appears to be designed to promote its members http://istandardproducers.com/faq/. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:50, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - The references provided in the article are mostly from sources that do not meet the Wikipedia definition of [[WP:RS|reliable] and appear to be an attempt at carpet-bombing the article with references hoping something sticks. The best source out of that mess is the Cincinnati.com ite, but it's more of a community event announcement. I cannot find any better sourcing in my own searches. -- Whpq (talk) 15:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Clear example of BLP1E, and its BLPness warrants speedily acting on SNOW consensus. Drmies (talk) 04:33, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Karas

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

WP:NOTNEWS Shirt58 (talk) 11:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete per nom. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:05, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete

A single event that creates a news stir is not sufficient to establish notability. Dloh cierekim 15:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete - clear cut under

wp:BLP1E. Neonchameleon (talk) 00:54, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 03:48, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 03:49, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 03:49, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

delete One poster flap in school does not notability make. Mangoe (talk) 04:30, 28 December 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. Thanks everyone for participating. :) Please

SarahStierch (talk) 03:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Piston Cloud Computing

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

Another promotional article on a small computer services company, listing all the execs both in the infobox and the article, and all the minor nominations for minor awards. The refs are PR. DGG ( talk ) 18:55, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 03:40, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 03:40, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 03:40, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 03:41, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails
WP:CORP for lack of significant coverage by independent reliable sources. All the references in the article are press releases or equivalent - short puff pieces in very minor trade magazines. In a search I did find an article at Wired (magazine) but that was all. --MelanieN (talk) 23:58, 29 December 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. Tone 23:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NetGain Technologies

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

Promotional article for small computer service company. The refs are uniformly public relations, and "top 250 " of anything is not notability. The listing of every executive, every branch office, every routine certification, and every possible service in the infobox is characteristic of promotional articles. Accepted from AfC , which is no surprise. DGG ( talk ) 18:23, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A local firm going about its business, providing "solutions for business problems" and gathering industry listings, but no
encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 19:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 03:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 03:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 03:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Mostly primary sources and press release reprints /rehashes are being presented as sources. Aside from that, there are short snippet news blips about their acquisition of a rival. No enough to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 23:10, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Conjowa: Sequel Na i-Two

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

Non-notable film BOVINEBOY2008 17:31, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 03:32, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 03:33, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. I thought I recognized the title. It looks like it's a sequel to
(｡◕‿◕｡) 04:50, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

It actually looks like the current user account I just blocked was actually a way of trying to get around the block made with
(｡◕‿◕｡) 17:11, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - same rationale as the first film, a student production lacking coverage in reliable sources.
csd new 11:08, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

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

And searches through

WP:INDAFD: NADA

Delete per being at best
WP:NFF paragraph 3. The COI issues of the article's author do not help the situation in the least. Allow recreation or undeletion only if or when notability guideline is met. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:34, 29 December 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

Female Gridiron League of Queensland. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:17, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Logan City Jets

)

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

This club has not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources, therefore fails

WP:GNG. I have searched Google News, EBSCO Australia/New Zealand Reference Centre, Factiva and Fairfax News Store and the only mention of this club in a reliable source is the Courier-Mail article in the article. Hack (talk) 04:22, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 09:56, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 09:56, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 09:56, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an entirely amateur team in a seriously obscure sports league. Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but merge to
Female Gridiron League of Queensland. In looking at the articles, FGLQ is a short article, so the material here could be rolled in there reasonably. I think the history of this page should be preserved, so for AfD purposes, my !vote is to keep. I do think the merge should go on, either as an outcome of this AfD directly or through a separate merge discussion. —C.Fred (talk) 14:08, 11 December 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,

SarahStierch (talk) 02:08, 19 December 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, buff bills 7701 16:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as above. And as was done in the Kenmore Panthers AfD Non-notable team, and small enough article that the page can take a paragraph for each of the four teams. Neonchameleon (talk) 01:17, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Material would be appropriate in the league article. -- Whpq (talk) 17:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 23:10, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Bevere

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

does not meet

WP:N Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 16:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Weak delete. She appears to be a published author. A quick Google doesn't turn up any substantive evidence of achievement beyond that though. I would be inclined to keep if the article could be expanded on her work or other aspect of her life (for example, why is it that the article makes a point about her being a Christian?). Otherwise, this article appears to be worthless. --gilgongo (talk) 23:54, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appears to miss
wp:AUTHOR by a wide margin. I would also note that the link to this discussion is broken on her main page. Neonchameleon (talk) 01:23, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 03:31, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 03:32, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 03:32, 28 December 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. A general conse nsus that none of the articles display sifficient notability. Black Kite (talk) 21:30, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kenjiro Yoshigasaki

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

Article with only primary sources about a martial artist that doesn't appear to meet

WP:MANOTE. My search didn't find significant independent coverage of him. Papaursa (talk) 03:35, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 03:35, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are all very closely related and do not stand on their own:

Redirect and Merge I would like to see some confirmation of the numbers of members and dojos (they look inflated to me) but given that there would be enough to justify a merge and redirect of Ki No Kenkyukai Association Internationale and Kenkodo into Kenjiro Yoshigasaki. All three are directly associated with each other but can not stand alone. Kenkodo definately is non-notable. I would suggest a straight Delete of Kiatsu mainly because it is far from clear what the article is about but book or concept notability is not clear.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the talk pages of the articles the original author seems to reflect my view vis a vis the merging of three into Kenjiro Yoshigasaki and the deletion of Kiatsu. There is a dearth of secondary sources but there are a number of publications and I think in the context of Ki Aikido a good case can be made for notability of a merged article.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all None of these articles have significant independent coverage. The articles claim Kenkodo and Kiatsu are the same and Kiatsu's only sources are from it's founder and Kenkodo's sources are the same plus an article by Yoshigasaki who appears to be it's leading advocate. Yoshigasaki's article has no independent sources and the association's sources are Yoshigasaki (its founder) and it's own publications.Mdtemp (talk) 17:11, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated the Yoshigasaki article for deletion, but I agree with Mdtemp's assessment--all 4 nominated articles lack the independent sources required to show notability. Papaursa (talk) 02:53, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and Merge I have added new footnotes and inline references. How we can close the AfD discussion to merge all(Ki No Kenkyukai Int Assc, Kenkodo) articles to Kenjiro Yoshigasaki? Peter Rehse advi ced he can help me to do that? kiakido1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiaikido1 (talk • contribs) 10:34, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There still doesn't seem to be any independent sources for the Yoshigaskaki article. The sources you added are from someone who studied the same art with the same teacher as Yoshigasaki and that doesn't seem like an independent source to me. Papaursa (talk) 02:11, 24 December 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, Sandstein 10:03, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These articles all lack the necessary coverage to show notability or meet the conditions at
WP:MANOTE. Jakejr (talk) 18:30, 29 December 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 to Abel equation. Tone 23:10, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abel function

)

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

A bevy of WP articles, including Abel equation, Schröder's equation, Böttcher's equation etc... cover this exact material. There is no thinkable excuse for sending readers to this meaningless blurb. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 16:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 03:26, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to one of the above-mentioned articles. I don't know enough about math to say which. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:21, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to
Abel function article is very hard to comprehend, and I don't think the article Abel's equation would in any way be improved by a merger in its current form. If someone wants to sort it out and hopefully track down references for what is apparently a generalization of the usual equation, then please feel free to do so. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:05, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

As I indicated, all the material is already present, in more readable form, in Abel equation and its brothers, except for the turgid contradistinction to the off-mainstream "superfunction", to which it could serve as a hapless footnote, in the best of worlds. Right now, it is definitely counterproductive, as, in practice, it hogs the title "Abel function" ---which really, really, should redirect to Abel equation and not to this indefensible stub. A confused reader trawls WP to find why the Abel function diverges at fixed points and ends up in this stub? Good luck. I think deletion is the only solution, and then instant recycling of the name to redirect to Abel equation.Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 16:29, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
Abel's equation. Ebony Jackson (talk) 17:24, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

OK, Following consensus, I repurposed/retrofitted the page to a Redirect to Abel equation, and took down the original citizendium porting template from its Talk page, but left this discussion intact for an administratively adept person to terminate and close the book on. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 17:53, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus until an uninvolved editor closes this AfD. Please revert your changes; blanking the article and removing the AfD tag while the article is under consideration is specifically not allowed while the AfD is in progress and is considered disruptive. See

WP:CLOSEAFD for details. Thanks, --Mark viking (talk) 18:01, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Apologies for my ignorance of procedure. Restored page as advised. This terminates my involvement in this business and I will not touch that page, its talkpage, and the AfD stuff ever again. They are off my watchlist, and I should be off their map. Please do 'not message me on such. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 18:47, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for restoring the page. I know the redirect was done in good faith; I made a similar mistake some months ago, jumping the gun on a merge before the AfD was closed. Cheers, --Mark viking (talk) 02:24, 29 December 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. Tone 23:07, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Birkin

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

Apparently conflict autobiography. References given do not establish notability. Article is an orphan. I want to move a notable person,

James Michael Birkin here. Barney the barney barney (talk

)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (
^Notify_Online 15:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete This article seems to have been created and maintained by a sequence of
notability is a 1998 "Marketing" magazine feature: I have added that as an External Link (to avoid interfering with the exotic referencing in the article). My feeling is that is not enough to establish encyclopaedic notability though. AllyD (talk) 17:54, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. There is nothing in the article that indicates the subject is anything more than an average businessman, having done nothing notable beyond setting up a company and doing exactly what would be expected of him in that role. The suspicion of
WP:SPA also does not help at all. --gilgongo (talk) 00:03, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - I see nothing there that would pass
wp:A7 - so possibly even Speedy Delete. Neonchameleon (talk) 01:26, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 03:25, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 03:25, 28 December 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 00:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arbaxoceras

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

I have attempted to find any reference to this creature, but have been unable. The sole source that this creature exists appears to be a deviantArt account , but the author has, since June 31 of this year, repeatedly said that the article has not yet been published, and has deleted comments asking him for proof of such a creature, sometimes adding a hostile comment before deleting it. Regardless of the intent of the author, the fact that there is no legitimate source for it means that it cannot be part of Wikipedia.

I am also nominating the following related pages because they appear to have been pulled from the same source:

There may be other pages, but those are all one ones I can find. -- Citrakayah (talk) 15:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (
^Notify_Online 15:53, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment I tagged Arbaxoceras with the proper AfD tag and removed the PROD template. Safiel (talk) 16:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The artist's hostile commentaries may in fact be response to other people incessantly harassing him about the project.--Mr Fink (talk) 17:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Of course I responded with hostile commentaries: how could I not become hostile when I'm being constantly harangued by rude, impatient assholes who are too arrogant and too addicted to instant gratification to even consider asking in a polite manner, as well as being too arrogantly dense to take even the most blatant of hints?(the artist)--50.53.75.202 (talk) 22:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete all Either way, after having informed the artist about this situation, he wishes to see all these pages deleted immediately, as they were not made with his consent.--Mr Fink (talk) 17:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment After research, the artist's actual art has not been posted on Wikipedia in any way and he has no justification to demand deletion of these articles under copyright. However...... Safiel (talk) 17:39, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete all They are likely all hoaxes, based on fictional artwork. I will not request Speedy Deletion, on the off chance that one or more may actually exist. Safiel (talk) 17:39, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete all Of course they're "hoaxes": all of them are imaginary because they're for my own personal project which is still in development. The pages were not made with my consent, and I would like to see these pages gone immediately if these pages are the reason why so many rude trolls are harassing me about them on deviantart.(the artist)--50.53.75.202 (talk) 22:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have marked them all as hoaxes. At the worst, they will all be gone in a week. Safiel (talk) 23:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 03:24, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 28 December 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. The discussion centred on whether the subject meets the

general notability guidelines, and there is a strong case made that he does but this has not resulted in a consensus among the participants. While I have disregarded the struck comments by sockpuppets, I cannot help but agree that they have resulted in a very messy discussion and may have put off some editors from sharing their opinions. As I don't believe that a relisting would be likely to overcome these issues I am closing this as no consensus without prejudice to a new nomination if anyone wants, although I'd personally prefer at least a few days before that happens. Thryduulf (talk) 15:24, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Louis Joseph Posner

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

Don't see that this meets notability guidelines and don't see coverage as significant. There's a negative BLP aspect as well. User who has spent hundreds of edits on the thing wants badly to delete it. May be this is the same user that created the thing with a new nick. Too much editorial water under the bridge for G7 and I don't see a prior AfD for G4. A7 is out too, so here we go! Dloh cierekim 15:43, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See Cullen's delete rationale. He put's it quite well. Dloh cierekim 01:35, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

**Comment.The Article was previously deleted under "Speedy Deletion" as an unambiguous advertising which only promotes a person, and by virtue of the creator of the original article User:lawline who was banned in January 2011. See Talk Page for User:lawline, that stated:

==Speedy deletion nomination of Louis Joseph Posner==

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read
the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard
to help you create articles.

~~A tag has been placed on~~

~~Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.User:What88 15:53, 27 December 2013 (UTC)~~[reply

]

Speedy deletion is not AfD Why not let the AfD play out? And could you please remove the copy paste from the talk page? It is unsightly and not germaine. Simply stating the previous CSD nomination suffices. Dloh cierekim 16:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Agreed, let the AfD play out.User:What88 17:46, 27 December 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]

Keep Meets
WP:GNG in the strictest sense. Posner is probably most recently remembered for his disbarment following a guilty plea to promoting prostitution, as well as a suit by NYPD to fight enforcement of an order to disburse seized/forfeited monies to Posner to fund his criminal defense (he had also been indicted money laundering, and falsifying business records related to a Voter March bank account). [14] (and other sources) In 1993, Posner was also noted for lawsuits against the Central Synagogue Nursery School (both state and federal) which failed, as well as a lawsuit against the New York Law Publishing Company for a satirical cartoon and article criticizing him for those lawsuits. (source not available online, but see Posner v. N.Y.L. Pub. Co., 644 N.Y.S.2d 227 (App. Div. 1996)). Another possible source of notability (though substantially less significant) is his involvement in Voter March. As to the negative BLP aspect, while some respect for the subject's wishes might be in order if he wanted to remain private, that's not the case here; we've got at least one person here trying to promote this individual's political advocacy pursuits. It's not our job to either promote this person or say nothing at all. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

***Comment. The New York State indictment is an accusatory instrument, not a criminal conviction. "A person accused of a crime is innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court. For persons who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including any material..."
WP:BLPCRIME. Posner was never convicted of any money laundering or falsifying business records charges. The misdemeanor charge for falsifying business records simply said that when Posner opened a bank account for Voter March that he indicated that this "not-for-profit" corporation was a "for profit" corporation. (See, Posner v. The City of New York, et.al., Docket No. CV 4859 (JMF)(SDNY 2013), Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment: Falsifying Business Records in the Second Degree: Voter March, Ltd., pp. 9-10, by Jacobs & Hazan, LLP, Attorneys, May 3, 2013; published by Jonathan S. Gould, Esq. at Scribd.com [[15]]). This is a very minor charge and not notable. Posner was never charged or convicted for any crimes in any federal court.Luckydan89 (talk) 03:19, 30 December 2013 (UTC) [reply
]

Found the NYLJ article on microfiche. It's a first-page article, that continues on the 6th page of the same issue, for a total of 10 paragraphs, and featuring a cartoon of a silhouette attempting to block a doorway with an enormous $12M bill, with a child's face peeking out from underneath. The Superior Court decision was also printed at page 28 of the same issue. While admittedly, the incident itself just about fits the definition of a tempest in a teacup, it was the subject of non-trivial coverage, and is separated enough from the strip joint case that I would argue that BLP1E does not apply to this subject. In short, we're at least past
Jeff Skilling because they're embarrassing to the subjects or their relatives. And I think we're being extremely generous in the Posner article for not going into depth in terms of the verifiable information mentioned in some of the articles, such as Posner's admission to "interviewing" talent for his strip club. Anyway, I would further argue that What88 has no real standing to invoke a "subject requested" delete on the part of Posner as there's no indication he shares any kind of privity with the subject. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:26, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

***Comment. Your analogy of Posner to
Jeff Skilling, the major players in the huge Enron scandal, is “over the top.” Enron involved one of the largest “white collar” crimes in the history of the United States.Luckydan89 (talk
) 19:50, 29 December 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Strong Delete As primary author of the Article on Posner, I had researched law cases related to his work as an attorney, and had indicated the following:

Posner was co-counsel for a defendant in the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) insider trading case involving Motel 6 in the U.S. District Court, S.D.N.Y.,^[1] and related class action suit.^[2] Posner also represented the plaintiff in Ox v. Union Central Life, a U.S. District Court case involving wrongful rescission of a disability insurance policy, which was reported in Westlaw, Lexis, Mealey's Litigation Reporter and the American Disabilities Reporter.^[3]

On December 19, 2013,
WP:UNDUE
still applies to this guy"

I had also come across the cases involving Central Synagogue and the New York Law Journal which are about 20 years old. Both cases were ultimately dismissed, and accordingly, there is nothing notable about a lawyer losing a case. Further, in that the cases involved a minor child with a disability, I was concerned with the sensitivity of the subject and possible violations of
WP:BLP
.

The article is in violation of
WP:BLPCRIME
and should be deleted for that reason alone. The article makes reference to sensationalist articles in the tabloid, the NY Post. A person is presumed innocent unless convicted of the crime charged; the Article improperly makes reference to money laundering charges which Posner was never convicted of. Wikipedia is not a tabloid and must exercise caution on any article involving a living person, and must refrain from being sensationalist, judgmental, accusatory, retaliatory and malicious.

~~Further, there is nothing in this article meets notability standards at~~
WP:GNG. The only possibly notable items are Posner's former involvement with the HLD Club and VoterMarch. However, there are separate articles on both the HLD Club and VoterMarch, and the article on Posner is merely duplicative of these articles. User:What88 17:44, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment.
WP:BLP are red herrings. Posner’s arrest, plea, conviction and disbarment were not only covered by the NY tabloid media (NY Post, Daily News) but by more sedate outlets such as the New York Times and the ABA Journal. Posner pleaded guilty and is a convicted felon. The events are well-sourced, and the article here does not sensationalize them. It should also be noted that What88, who now argues so strenuously for the deletion, had previously contended that this subject was in fact notable, here. JohnInDC (talk) 17:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

As the creator of the Article on Posner, my initial position was that the subject was notable. However, after numerous comments and edits from other Users and Editors who have questioned the notability of the subject, I have changed course. I now agree with the nominator
WP:BLPCRIME
, we have a professional and ethical responsibility to delete this article. As the creator of the Article, deference should be given to my "strong delete." If he is not notable the article should be deleted in its entirety. If he is notable then it is almost certainly because of these events, reports of which seem to be the most thoroughly pertinent 3d party material about the subject that seems to exist; and if the article is kept then it may not exclude those events. Keep or delete, BLP and BLPCRIME do not inform the determination. JohnInDC (talk) 19:55, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~WP:BLPCRIME do inform the decision to keep or delete.User:What88 20:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)~~[reply
]
Also. What88 should delete one of his two "Strong Deletes" above. JohnInDC (talk) 18:01, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Noted and done, only one "Strong Delete".User:What88 18:32, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural question: Since What88 has been blocked indef for sockpuppetry (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lawline/Archive), should his !vote be stricken? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:22, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. I think, anything that alerts a reviewing admin to the circumstance would be sufficient, whether it's an annotation or collapsed text or - well, I don't know what. A strikethrough of the "vote" with a note explaining why; leaving the next in place? In any case once someone is aware that What88 has a distinct POV here, and casually abuses Wikipedia accounts to advance that POV, they can decide how to interpret his comments. JohnInDC (talk) 03:01, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can tell you that I give 0 weight to his rationale. Not to be incivil but, none. I would not touch his edit though. It only takes a moment to understand his story. Dloh cierekim 03:08, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

**Comment Agreed, it would be improper to alter the edit of What88; and What88's comments and arguments should be given full consideration in this discussion of Articles of Deletion. Luckydan89 (talk) 19:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Proposition. A CU has determined that Luckydan cannot be distinguished from other Lawline socks. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lawline. While I am content to leave first sock What88's comments in place, absent objection I intend to strike through second sock Luckydan89's further postings. It's already generous to permit a confirmed sock to express himself once; twice is too much. JohnInDC (talk) 15:36, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Posner is not notable to the standards of Wikipedia. His conviction for promoting prostitution in connection with a local strip club is not a serious crime. Prostitution is a victimless crime and is legal in most of Nevada and in many countries in the western world. Posner never served a jail sentence. It is ridiculous to compare Posner to
Jeff Skilling, the major players in the huge Enron scandal who served lengthy prison sentences. Posner's only arguably notable contribution was as founder of VoterMarch. However, most of that work dates back to 2001 and is already covered adequately in the Wikipdia article. I also see no reason to discount or disregard What88's vote as that vote was cast prior to his/her being blocked. However, if you were to take the position that What88's vote should be discounted, then you need to discount the article written about Posner by what88 and that then serves as a further basis for deletion of this article.Luckydan89 (talk) 09:55, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Lawline re the contributor Luckydan89. JohnInDC (talk) 05:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

***Comment I have had an account with Wikipedia since 2008. My User page indicates college student. This is the only account that I have with Wikipedia. This sockpuppet investigation is ridiculous and is being used as a personal attack against my credibility and my input in this Article for Deletion. Luckydan89 (talk) 19:29, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect To VoterMarch, and merge a minimum non-weighty subset of the biographical information there. If we remove the VoterMarch part, this is just a wholly negative BLP where the subject is notable only for a crime that got coverage mostly in the NY tabloid circuit. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:34, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully disagree. The crime Posner is notable for goes beyond the tabloid circuit (see the NY Times article, as well as the kerfuffle involving the disbursal of seized funds), and Posner himself goes beyond BLP1E given his involvement in the failed lawsuits (state and federal) against the Central Synagogue Nursery School (which were covered by the N.Y.L.J. and others). If anything, the Voter March stuff should be trimmed back substantially, though probably not omitted entirely. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:09, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am writing on behalf of Louis J. Posner requesting that this Biography of a Living Person
~~WP:BLPNAME~~ Denver982 (talk) 20:10, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Hi Lawline, I'mm sure you now the way to
WP:OTRS Dloh cierekim 20:09, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Would've taken all of five minutes to come out and say you were in contact with the subject and request some action on his behalf instead of dicking around for weeks. This is why New York led the way when it introduced code pleading (I suggest reading up on how pleading worked at common law, by the way; even in the medieval era, you kept the facts really close to your chest... it's quite interesting). While I oppose OTRS taking action on this article, I wholly support your taking it there. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:29, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If this were legit, then it would be up to the subject or their rep to contact OTRS. This is yet another bizarre twist in a strange game. It amazes me that a person new to WIkipedia would come directly to the BLP notice board and to this discussion. The simple thing would be to go to OTRS directly. The office would figure it all out and make a decision. Dloh cierekim 20:45, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per FreeRangeFrog. VoterMarch can cover his relevance to the organization, the rest is a minor crime story. Gamaliel (talk) 21:00, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per our guideline at
WP:PERP which says that the crime has to be "a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage." This bust of a lap dance club fails that standard by a country mile, and all the other "scandals" and tabloid hollering are trivial. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:20, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
This is more than a vice raid of a strip joint that happened to sweep up an attorney. The coverage on just this incident started with the bust and has continued until as late as February in the Post, and appears to have resulted in Posner's CPA getting pulled back in September. There were several court cases on multiple issues stemming from this, each of which was the subject of significant coverage, including one case where the NYPD appealed a trial court's ruling that they had to disburse seized funds to Posner to spend on his defense. Yes, this case was in the tabloids. Is that alone reason to delete? Hell no. This got mainstream and industry coverage as well, and is by far not the only thing Posner's remembered for (the Central Synagogue cases and Voter March; so we're past
National Jewish Book Awards annually, and is much more consistently mentioned in the press than this guy (though it's still admittedly niche). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:40, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
I would disagree with the redirect - the prize is named for "Louis Posner", not "Louis Joseph Posner". §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:27, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If this perp is notable then every single convicted murderer in human history is notable. But they aren't. Are you actually claiming that the fact that a felon who got probation also had his CPA pulled somehow adds to his "notability"? Being one of several that founded a very marginally notable activist group does not make someone notable, nor does involvement in a trivial lawsuit or two. That's what many non-notable lawyers do - sue people and lose. Or sometimes win. And their number is legion. Passing local press coverage does not make such routine shenanigans notable. As for redirecting to the article for an entirely innocent organization, no way. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:27, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just following the guidelines you cited. There's been continuing coverage and the incident has continued to develop and be covered in the news. International newswires are the antithesis of local coverage, by the way. As well as much of the legal industry coverage I've mentioned. If you're correct that specious lawsuits by unremarkable attorneys is the norm, then the coverage of multiple Lou Posner stories by legal industry periodicals would suggest there is something a bit less unremarkable about this character. Frankly, I would argue that this individual has a diverse enough background of coverage that
WP:UNDUE, but we're talking about notability. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:19, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

The case dragged on for a couple of years, and the run-of-the-mill news coverage dragged on for a couple of years. So what? Newspapers love crime stories involving sex and strippers. Continuing coverage after the dragged out proceedings? Zero. These crimes are utterly non-notable and of no historical significance whatsoever. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Several items are simply of no value -- such as being an editor of a HS publication. He appears to have been a political activist who then managed to get caught in a separate felony and disbarred. He might meet GNG, but my reading is that he fails. I do find it interesting that he might have used his activism to launder money, though. Collect (talk) 16:46, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The industry coverage of the Central Synagogue suit that preceded the felony arrest/conviction by over 10 years? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see, Mendaliv: a lawyer filed a lawsuit and lost. A publication mocked the lawsuit, so inconsequential that it isn't even mentioned in the Central Synagogue article. The litigious lawyer sued the publication and lost. You are arguing that makes him notable? I don't think so. I think it is run of the mill lawyer crap, even if it happened in Manhattan. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not correct, first of all, and a mischaracterization of my position secondly. Posner filed a state lawsuit, then a federal lawsuit, and got benchslapped when he tried to up the damages in his suit under state law. The New York Law Journal (a major daily legal industry periodical) reported on it, giving it a front page story, where it included a mildly humorous cartoon. The story itself was a fairly straightforward, non-polemical retelling of the lawsuit itself. NYLJ also reprinted the entire Supreme Court bench opinion in the back pages. And the only reason I found that article was because the subsequent libel suit referenced it; NYLJ isn't well indexed, at least not in a manner available to me. The mere non-presence of the incident at the Wikipedia article on the Central Synagogue is a non sequitur; first, Wikipedia is not complete, and secondly, the argument fallaciously conflates
WP:PERP alone does not suffice because we're talking about more than a criminal event—we're talking about civil suits and political advocacy that are independent of the initial subject (even presuming Voter March were related to the strip club activities in some ways, it does not follow that the two are inseparable from a topical standpoint).
Finally, your arguments here make several unfortunate mischaracterizations as to the nature of lawyering and life in New York City that, respectfully, should re not be granted weight, and are (in light of the substantial coverage of the legal events) simply incorrect. That lawyers can be litigious should not be a matter of consideration here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:41, 3 January 2014 (UTC)or lawyers, we all know[reply
]
I am not mischaracterizing your position but rather offering my evaluation of the notability of the topic. You think it's notable; I don't. How, pray tell, did I mischaracterize life in New York City? By mentioning Manhattan? As for lawyers, we all know that many are exemplary and some are scoundrels. You make many valid points. To me, none of them add up to notability per
WP:PERP. You disagree, as is your right. Why don't we let the closing administrator decide, as we've both probably already made our best cases? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:13, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment Due to the rampant socking and bad-faith attempted manipulation of the AfD process, perhaps this should be closed as "no consensus" and a new one opened so that a "clean" discussion minus the above distractions can be carried out? --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. We should probably collapse Lawline's socks. Ignoring him, I think the closing admin can come to a conclusion. Dloh cierekim 03:17, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's enough contamination of the discussion that a new AfD is needed. But I do think it should be noted that huge blocks of text tend to hinder new participants from voicing their opinions. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Myron Goldfinger

Myron Goldfinger (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)

Found no sources at all. The book sources are short mentions. PROD declined because "'just a stub' is not a reason for deletion" even though that is not the reason. Beerest 2 talk 14:49, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. GScholar has some reviews of some of his buildings in Architectural Digest, and lists 24 citations of his 1969 book Villages in the Sun; a brief review of the book's 1993 reprint is here [16]. His website has a page with copies of a number of articles about his buildings [17] and other searches turned up commentary here: [18][19][20] (By the way, he is also apparently a noted collector of New Mexico folk art, see [21][22].) --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. The subject appears potentially encyclopaedic if better references can be brought to bear. --gilgongo (talk) 00:08, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 03:21, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 03:22, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 03:22, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added his books, some of which are fairly widely held, though reviews are needed. In any event, the criticism of his work in Architechtural Digest is sufficient to meet the requirements for WP:CREATIVE. DGG ( talk ) 05:45, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with grateful thanks to
WP:CREATIVE is met. Well done. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:03, 29 December 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 to International recognition of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. Tone 23:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic–United States relations

Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic–United States relations (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 see no encyclopaedic value of this article as there are no relations between these 2 "countries", the fact that the USA does not recognise this republic is covered in International recognition of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. LibStar (talk) 14:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - somehow this reminds me of 1933 in video gaming. I suppose it could be turned into a redirect to International recognition of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic but I don't see much value even in that. Sideways713 (talk) 17:19, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the international recognition article: if we keep it as a redirect, it may well prevent people from recreating it inappropriately. Nyttend (talk) 21:43, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Thanks everyone for participating. :) Please
SarahStierch (talk) 03:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Shaun Walker

Shaun Walker (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)

Is this "White Nationalist" leader, for a one year period (of an organization that was alleged to be the most well-organized and well-funded "White Nationalist" group in the country but which only had a membership of 2,500), sufficiently notable? Not from where I'm sitting — appears to be garden variety petty criminal, as far as far as I can see, so not notable from that angle, either. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 14:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unless the subject has done anything actually notable in his role as an extremist or convict, he remains an ordinary person who has so far not led a life worthy of any note. --gilgongo (talk) 00:13, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no claim to notability, and we're wandering into
wp:BLP issues, in particular the harm clause about someone who's notable just for being a white nationalist who briefly lead a group and is a criminal. Two strikes against and no reason to keep the article. Neonchameleon (talk) 01:31, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reason whatsoever to keep a BLP with sensitive material when the claim to notability is weak. I remember an IP tried long time ago to delete the information about the arrest record so maybe
WP:HARM applies here. --Jmundo (talk) 22:37, 28 December 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. Black Kite (talk) 21:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Donald William Rutledge

Donald William Rutledge (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:NOTABILITY. Subject received an OBE, which while some indicator, is too common to achieve proper level of notability itself (hundreds given out each year). War medals, while reflecting an honorable service, are the sort given out by the millions. Nat Gertler (talk) 14:03, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - There is this, but that is all the additional information I could find, and it doesn't provide substantial coverage. I hate deleting historical subjects like this, but this appears to not meet GNG or
WP:BIO. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 14:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 03:16, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 03:17, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 03:18, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication of notability, not notable as a hairdresser or tobacconist. Fails
WP:MEMORIAL. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:15, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

The article has been expanded Waitamata (talk) 04:41, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Historical subjects really need to have done something that affects future generations directly I think. There is nothing in this article that really supports any encyclopaedic interest. Did he do or achieve anything during his life that somebody else in those roles would not have reasonably also been expected to do? No. --gilgongo (talk) 13:44, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep per OBE. Where recipients of OBEs both recieve them and die within the span of either papers past or modern digital newspaper collections they are pretty much always found notable. The fact the there's a span of time without online newspapers doesn't make those people less notable.
Stuartyeates (talk) 19:12, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

I'm not seeing the same consistency of results that you were; even if I was, I'm not sure that I'd interpret that as saying "OBEs are always notable", as opposed to "mostly, the non-notable folks with OBEs aren't generally having articles created about them." ----Nat Gertler (talk) 21:37, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article complies with the Wiki Five Pillars. Waitamata (talk) 19:46, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Could someone please help by putting this article into WikiProject New Zealand as a "New Zealand people stub(s)" 20:10, 28 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waitamata (talk • contribs)
In little New Zealand, of only a few million people, people who are ANZACs and get an OBE are notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.61.220.210 (talk) 05:51, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While I can certainly believe that they garner some respect at times, as is often accorded nobility, I find it hard to believe that being a rank-and-file member of the military inherently gains notability; there are too many people who do good service for that to be true. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:34, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand history is smaller and shorter in time than the USA but it is still valued by New Zealanders, particularly ANZAC troops. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.61.220.210 (talk) 00:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In this country people who become Life Members of a RSA such as Auckland must be notable for what they have contributed.
How many people get community buildings named in honour of them?

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Thanks everyone for participating. :) Please
SarahStierch (talk) 03:56, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Down to Earth (Bee Gees song)

Down to Earth (Bee Gees 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)

Song not released as single. Non-charting. Non-notable. Lyrical and production info are pure
WP:NMUSIC ES &L 13:30, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 03:14, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 03:14, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 03:14, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing notable about this song.TheLongTone (talk) 16:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Every song on the album on which this piece appears has its own page. It would seem that this song would at least be notable as a part of a million-selling album, but maybe not. I would suggest that the author of this page do some more in-depth research about the song, possibly reviewing some bios or auto-bios about the Bee Gees and maybe about the album. BrianThibodeaux (talk) 23:06, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Every song on the album has its own page because either a single user operating three accounts or three users with identical editing characteristics and very similar usernames have created pages. Almost all are the same, a poorly written description of a song with no claim to notability such as criical attention, cover versions which have been hits, &c. Its pure fancruft, & would be better included in the album article.TheLongTone (talk) 00:13, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because all are similar articles by same editor about album tracks or in some cases b-sides of singles with no assertion of notability:

In the Summer of His Years (Bee Gees song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)

The Earnest of Being George (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Barker of the UFO (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Happiness (Barry Gibb song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

In My Own Time (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

above added by TheLongTone (talk) 02:01, 29 December 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. Thanks everyone for participating. :) Please
SarahStierch (talk) 03:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Jack Stafford

Jack Stafford (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 a single reliable source supporting notability. All are blog links, non-notable sites and primary refs; the NME link is a search that yielded no results. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 03:13, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 03:13, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources; I could find one, and the ones in the article don't cut it. -- Whpq (talk) 18:06, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Thanks everyone for participating. :) Please
SarahStierch (talk) 03:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Tell Me Why (Bee Gees song)

Tell Me Why (Bee Gees 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)

Song not released as single. Non-charting. Non-notable. Lyrical and production info are pure
WP:NMUSIC ES &L 13:27, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, as with all this obsessives similar articles.TheLongTone (talk) 15:03, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 03:09, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 03:09, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 03:09, 28 December 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. Thanks everyone for participating. :) Please
SarahStierch (talk) 03:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

The Greatest Man in the World

The Greatest Man in the World (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Song not released as single. Non-charting. Non-notable. Lyrical and production info are pure
WP:NMUSIC ES &L 13:27, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Not notable.14:51, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 04:11, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 04:11, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 04:11, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:28, 30 December 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. Thanks everyone for participating. :) Please
SarahStierch (talk) 03:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Remembering (song)

Remembering (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)

Non-notable song. Not released as single, no charting. Lyrical, musical, and production analysis is pure
WP:MUSIC ES &L 13:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 03:03, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 03:03, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 03:04, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable, yet more poorly sourced fancruft.TheLongTone (talk) 11:24, 29 December 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. Thanks everyone for participating. :) Please
SarahStierch (talk) 03:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

It's Just the Way

It's Just the Way (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 song. Not released as single, no charting. Lyrical analysis is pure
WP:MUSIC ES &L 13:09, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:59, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 03:00, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 03:00, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, yet another unremarkable album trackTheLongTone (talk) 10:12, 28 December 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. Thanks everyone for participating. :) Please
SarahStierch (talk) 03:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Universal classification

Universal classification (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)

Incomprehensible stub about the work of a certain A.A. Shpackov. Of the two references, I can't find the second in GScholar (even after correcting the typos), while the former has only a single (self-)citation, and it looks like it's a letter to the editor of JASIST rather than a peer-reviewed article. I.e., non-notable. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 12:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:42, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nominator could not be clearer. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:54, 28 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Delete per nom. Kolbasz (talk) 15:51, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Looks to be a scheme that has not been noted as I can find no coverage about it. -- Whpq (talk) 18:10, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted under
Schoolwork. I'm not sure about the redirect, but that discussion is not for here. (non-admin closure) Ansh6 6 6 05:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Tongo lizard

Tongo lizard (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)

Bags of hits for this creature, but none I can find that give a proper scientific name: I suspect it's an internet meme. Article is clear (insourced) BS: where does a creature living in the sahara get a litre of milk a week from. For instance. TheLongTone (talk) 12:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC) TheLongTone (talk) 12:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: as the greatest consumer of milk in the Sahara. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 16:31, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as a clear (but not quite blatant) hoax. Besides for the suspect "facts" and their odd precision ("38 leaves a day"? Who counted?), a Google search makes it obvious that the description of this creature varies wildly from author to author. The only common denominators are its name, *~~location,~~ and endangered status. This source should explain why this is so. (At least Tongo's cousin had honest beginnings.) הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 16:31, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
*(location actually also varies between sources: Central America, Indonesia, etc. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 16:37, 27 December 2013 (UTC))[reply]

A list of 13 subspecies of Tongo lizards, with the names of their discoverers. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 16:40, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 16:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 16:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as totally imaginary. Inventing a "Tongo lizard" is a standard schoolchild exercise: [23]. -- 101.119.28.58 (talk) 20:27, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Now that is helpful: I suggest the appropriate thing to do is to rewrite the article with that as a ref. And possibly advising any lazy child hoping to swipe an assignment from wikipedia not to believe everything they read....TheLongTone (talk) 21:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that this particular schoolwork assignment is notable enough for an article (passing references only). However, for the reasons you mentioned, perhaps after deletion we should recreate the page as a redirect to
Schoolwork, with a link on the talkpage to this discussion. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 01:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Deleted under G3, blatant hoax. The litre, 38 leaves, and asexual reproduction ("In adulthood, they do not reproduce with other lizards, but reproduce themselves") are enough by themselves, and the link to Google Books also helps. I've recreated it per Hasirpad's suggestion, and added a talk page note; if I find people recreating it, I'll protect it. Nyttend (talk) 21:40, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should there not be something on the target page to explain why Tongo lizard redirects there?TheLongTone (talk) 22:07, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No need; see the redirect's talk page, instead. We don't put things on targets for their redirects, except for disambiguation;
Zanesville redirects to Zanesville, Ohio, so we include a hatnote with a link to Zanesville (disambiguation), but since "Tongo lizard" isn't ambiguous, there's no need. Nyttend (talk) 22:33, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
There is a certain irony in a school execise designed to get children to use their imaginations being set by teachers without the imagination to make up their own name for the critter TheLongTone (talk) 22:59, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Already speedily deleted per G11 Black Kite (talk) 21:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra kostrubala

Alexandra kostrubala (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)

Probable autobiography. Even if notability could be established, the article is such a mess that
WP:TNT applies. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 12:44, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - blatantly promotional. Deb (talk) 12:46, 27 December 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. Thanks everyone for participating. :) Please
SarahStierch (talk) 03:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Ajay H Singh

Ajay H 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)

I can't find support for
notability for "Ajay H Singh" or "Ajay Harinath Singh", or for "Ajay Singh" in conjunction with "Darwin Platform". I removed the article's one reference, to the Darwin home page, which is almost entirely "lorem ipsum". There's even very little coverage for "darwin pgc" or "darwin platform". —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. May be a hoax. I took the liberty of removing {{featured list}} from the article. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:10, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is a rewrite of the deleted article
talk) 19:52, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:37, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:37, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:37, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability not established. Jevansen (talk) 13:12, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - What a load of name dropping. But none of it can be substantiated with sources.-- Whpq (talk) 18:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Thanks everyone for participating. :) Please
SarahStierch (talk) 03:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Fran Metelko Škocjan Primary School

Fran Metelko Škocjan Primary School (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)

Dubious notability.
my talk 10:52, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Primary schools are generally not notable, unles presented otherwise in the article. Which is not the case here at the moment. --Tone 19:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The precedent is that primary schools without a significant claim are not notable, see
talk) 04:59, 29 December 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. Thanks everyone for participating. :) Please
SarahStierch (talk) 03:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Korean Air Flight 2033

Korean Air Flight 2033 (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 Wikipedia:Notability FonEengIneeR7 ^talk 10:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable incident....William 15:31, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Runway overruns happen all the time.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 16:12, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't know for sure, but I think this may be the Korean Air flight where the pilot and co-pilot had a fight during.(The CVR transcript is circumstantial evidence 2033 might be it) Sometime long ago I remember reading that happened. An editor out there may want to look into it. That may be a factor in whether this crash is notable or not....William 16:53, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was able to find these sources: Planecrashes.org and AirDisaster.com. The second is the one already cited in the article, but for some reason, the article doesn't directly include the entire conflict. I am not sure how reliable they are considered. TCMemoire (talk) 17:20, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is the flight you are talking about William. See [24]. Yet, I do think that this incident is anything but notable (it was not even a fight, just a small dispute). As Jetstreamer already said, runway excursions are frequent occurrences and do not deserve an independent article. FonEengIneeR7 ^talk 17:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions....William 16:53, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions....William 16:53, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions.....William 16:53, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions....William 16:53, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: it currently does not establish any of the criteria on
the notability guideline for plane crashes, but could meet them; other sources report that the airplane caught fire and was completely written off, so if major damage was done to the aircraft or if the hull was lost, it would meet one criterion, which is enough to establish notability. Also, the aircraft has been mentioned in several independent sources: Planecrashes.org, The Independent (UK newspaper), AirFleets.com. I am not sure how reliable these sources are considered, but it's a start. TCMemoire (talk) 17:20, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment We cannot create an article for every W/O, even if it might meet the criteria. Yesterday's Antonov crash was also a W/O and even involved fatalities but its article was deleted. FonEengIneeR7 ^talk 17:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, entirely unremarkable incident.TheLongTone (talk) 11:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) buff bills 7701 16:44, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Morgan (broadcaster)

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, sourced largely to press releases and blogs. PROD declined by entry creator's duplicate / sock account. Hairhorn (talk) 14:57, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk to me 15:06, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 9 December 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) 02:47, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As the nominator says, the article sources are PR and blog entries, one of which says "I don't know much about him" - hardly a
WP:RS basis for a biographical article. No evidence of attained biogaphical notability. AllyD (talk) 09:21, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Still, I disagree. I don't think there would be a good redirect. If this page is deleted, I will try to create it on Articles for creation as I have did with Kevin Ray and Bob McElligott. Then how in the world would you make this article notable then to prevent it from deleting it? It makes no sense to me. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 18:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These are not PR nor blog entries Morgan steps down as USC voice, Announcer Mike Morgan's farewell to Gamecock Nation. Sancho 17:33, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree with you on the second link, which is simply a written statement from the subject of the entry, not third party coverage. Hairhorn (talk) 18:11, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's third party coverage of simply a written statement from the subject. It's not like he just wrote this on his blog. Somebody thought it was worth disseminating. My point was that there are things other than blogs and PR about this guy. I don't know if the coverage in the non-blog, non-PR sources is significant enough to confer notability, though. Sancho 18:21, 23 December 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, Sandstein 09:58, 27 December 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. Thanks everyone for participating. :) Please
SarahStierch (talk) 03:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Mexicans in Argentina

Mexicans in Argentina (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 original research - particularly since there are no sources. I also question notability. Other opinions would be helpful, though. CaroleHenson (talk) 01:59, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk to me What did he do now? 02:19, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk to me What did he do now? 02:19, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. I didn't read the article closely but I do know a little about the subject myself. The subject itself is a notable and encyclopedic topic, as Mexicans in most of the "Southern Cone" (Brazil/Chile/Argentina) are somewhat of an oppressed and socially and economically marginalized class, even more so than in the United States. (Due to reasons that Mexico and the USA share geographic proximity and that overt racism is becoming less acceptable there). The plight of Mexicans in Argentina has been extensively studied in both the popular press and academic works. Fine sources can easily be found for this topic. Hector the Toad (talk) 03:25, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:57, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Since, this is being added to other discussion list, I thought it was worth noting that there are other similar articles that link to
Template:Immigration to Argentina. I was wondering if instead there should be one article that pulls the various ethnic/national components together.--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - currently, this is basically
original research via an unsourced essay. However, the topic appears to be notable. What to do? Bearian (talk) 18:46, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - since there are two votes for notability, how about tag the article for essay? It's already tagged for OR and needing references.--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:38, 14 December 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,
SarahStierch (talk) 01:49, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Despite
WP:AT doesn't really give a guide for it. --rm 'w a vu 06:00, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

User:Rm w a vu: You must be referring to User:Hector the Toad's !vote above; I only provided deletion sorting for this discussion. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, my bad. --rm 'w a vu 22:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the title should be "Mexican people in Argentina" --- The only case where "people" is necessary is when the demonym alone can't be pluralised, e.g. Burmese, Surinamese, etc. Pluralisable demonyms like Koreans and Bangladeshis and Mexicans are generally written as such, rather than with "people" appended. 61.10.165.33 (talk) 06:33, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Zero references and what appears to be
WP:OR about a really tiny group of people (<2K, if we are to believe the unsourced number). How can anyone draw any meaningful conclusions from such a miniscule sliver of Argentine society? Clarityfiend (talk) 08:11, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Not to play devil's advocate, but notability isn't always defined based on numeric value, but can be on ubiquity, should there have been a particularly eventful reason for the occupation, or if the Mexicans once had power, or were slaves, but if (and I say if not being any kind of authority on the matter) the exicans in Argentina simply represent 0.05% of the population and have had nothing resulting in any turnaround in the world, Mexico or Argentina, then I agree, but those grounds do not suffice as per
WP:INN. --rm 'w a vu 22:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment / Question. Somehow, there became a branching off of approaches for creating articles about ethnic or national groups in Argentina. This is one of several with a naming convention of
Mexicans in Argentina, Koreans in Argentina, Indians in Argentina, etc. while there are other, longstanding and indepth articles with another naming convention German Argentines
.

The articles seem to be brought together in the
Template:Immigration to Argentina
.

There is an article, though,
Ethnography of Argentina that seems to be a branching off place for the German Argentines
types of articles, but does not seem to mention Mexico.

Should there be a consistent approach for naming, types of article content and layout... while using well cited information?--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Given that all of the groups in question have different migration histories (some stretching back centuries, others a few decades at most), different levels of integration into Argentine society, and come from homelands with their own different popular conceptions of & academic approaches towards studying their diasporae, I don't see why you'd expect that there would be a "consistent approach for naming". And certainly it's not Wikipedia's place to impose such a convention where none exists among reliable sources:
WP:NC(CN)
and all that.

For another example of this, see the U.K. and its former empire, where some migrant/minority groups are called by the reverse of the American convention (e.g. British Chinese and Malaysian Siamese), while others groups are called by purely descriptive titles like Brazilians in the United Kingdom, Bangladeshis in Malaysia, and Chinese people in Sri Lanka because double-barreled demonyms are not the most common way that reliable sources refer to those groups.61.10.165.33 (talk) 05:47, 21 December 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, Sandstein 09:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice to recreation. Wikipedia loses nothing by
Mexican diaspora. 61.10.165.33 (talk) 21:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. This article has not much content, and no sources at all. If there is an encyclopedic article that can be written about this ethnic group, someone can try to write it another time when they have some good sources to base the article on. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Gujarati Muslims. Black Kite (talk) 21:38, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Surti Muslims

Surti Muslims (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 an article about Muslim community belonging to Surat but there is no separate caste by name of Surti Muslims see [25]. The article is almost unreferenced and unwanted fork of
Kutch, Ahmedabadi Muslims for town of Ahmadabad and so on. Jethwarp (talk) 02:33, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jethwarp (talk) 02:36, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:49, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:50, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't start to have an informed view on this but I see that this article is not a fork of Gujarati Muslims because it was created in 2007 here whereas the latter was created in 2008 here. Thincat (talk) 22:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@
WP:V so is a delete Jethwarp (talk) 06:25, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, no popular people have been noted, no population figure. So why we need such article that lacks the basic details? Bladesmulti (talk) 17:25, 25 December 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, Sandstein 09:49, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the Gujarati Muslims article, after merging anything if appropriate. Nothing wrong with retaining this as a redirect. Nyttend (talk) 21:30, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The concerns about notability were not addressed by those who advocated keeping the article. None of the reliable sources added since the AfD discuss Coughlin in any detail. Claims about his eminence in the field are not enough; we need third-party sources to back them up. Huon (talk) 01:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John J. Coughlin

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
csp
|username}}.

John J. Coughlin (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 page should be deleted because the subject lacks the notoriety appropriate to a Wiki entry. I, as the page creator, realize that I unknowingly violated policy by listing facts that could not be substantiated. Presently, a user editor has been making antagonistic changes. When I created the page without the request of my mentor, I thought it would provide an asset to him but there is an undeniable conflict of interest CAcarissma (talk)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (
^Notify_Online 07:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak Delete. COI on its own doesn't necessarily mean it should be deleted though. The subject seems potentially notable if the article can be re-cast to focus on substantive achievements or contributions to their field (if they have these). As it stands, however, it is probably best removed. --gilgongo (talk) 00:19, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:28, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:28, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:29, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:30, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:30, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ed by

KeepI nominated the entry for deletion based on a misunderstanding of Wikipedia's definition of what constitutes COI. I am ready, willing, and able to make the changes suggested by user Gilgongo. [t[Special:Contributions/23.243.128.110|23.243.128.110]] (talk) 04:07, 28 December 2013 (UTC)CAcarissma[reply]

Delete. GS
WP:Prof#C1 Too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:21, 28 December 2013 (UTC).[reply
]

KEEP Cross reference Coughlin to canon-civil lawyers or run a Google search. He's one of a handful in the world with such expertise. While I appreciate the creator's confession, IMHO, creating a page for a well-known and respected academic in and of itself does not constitute a conflict of interest, nor should traffic be the sine qua non of notoriety. That noted, traffic to the page has consistently increased in recent months Grafman1945 (talk) 04:39, 28 December 2013 (UTC) Grafman1945— Grafman1945 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

To 1 edit spa. Subject may be respected and well-known but he is not well-cited. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:08, 28 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

A valid point to consider, but also, a danger in emphasizing citations when a subject's reknown isn't limited to academics but includes lawyering and ministering. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgyhra (talk • contribs) 07:37, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I began following Professor Coughlin's work when he made the bold leap from the familiarity of Notre Dame University to cutting-edge education at New York University. Now that he's at a truly world-class university teaching tomorrow's leaders Coughlin will achieve the kind of notoriety in the world his publications deserve and already have in Catholic and Canon Law circles. There's not a soul in Catholic academics who isn't steeped in Professor Coughlin's research so considering the article for deletion caused shock and sadness. If a citation check can be limited to the field of Canon Law I surmise he's top ten most cited scholars. Search for Canon Law on Amazon and his books appear on the first page of results. To the petitioner, I made the so called antagonistic changes to the entry. The intro used to say something about Coughlin's thought instead of a list of interests. I thought the entry was vandalized and I was correcting the problem. I meant no harm whatsoever Rgyhra (talk) 07:07, 28 December 2013 (UTC) Yhra R.— Rgyhra (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete because of the blatant attempt here to subvert the voting process. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:09, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In all fairness, that is not a valid reason for deletion. The real issue here is whether this individual passes the relevant notability guidelines.This AfD debate is not a vote, and if users are treating it as a vote, the closing admin will give their !votes (notice the exclamationmark) the level of weight they deserve (ie little or none). James500 (talk) 19:56, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WithdrawnWith appreciation for the assistance provided by DUCKISJAMMMY in helping me to learn proper Wikipedia procedure, I would like to submit a proper request to withdraw my nomination for deletion of the entry. As stated above, I was too pedantic in my interpretation of what constitutes a Conflict of Interest and should have pursued alternate routes to quash the editing issues before making the nomination. For my disruption, I humbly request a *speedy keep Thank you for your consideration of my request to withdraw the nomination and for your patience as I continue to develop my Wikipedia skillsetCAcarissma (talk) 04:00, 29 December 2013 (UTC) — CAcarissma (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

CAcarissma a nominator may announce their intention to withdraw their nomination at any time. However, if subsequent editors have added substantive comments in good faith, the discussion should not be speedily closed especially in this case as there is insisting delete votes. Additionally a nomination should not be withdrawn in order to try to short-circuit an ongoing discussion. To clarify for everyone else, CAcarissma who is nominator decided that their nomination was a mistake and removed the AfD template I reverted & warned the user not to remove the AfD template while the AfD was ongoing and advised the user if they wished to withdraw to state that in the AfD discussion but CAcarissma delayed and there is delete votes. Therefore the discussion must run it's course CAcarissma, a minimum of seven days. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 04:57, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification and information. I have attempted to improve the entry by adding a reference to Coughlin's "pioneering" work from a book review in the March 2013 issue of the Oxford Journal of Law and Religion. The review articulates Coughlin's unique contributions to the fields of law and religion in language far more compelling than my own. A link to the book review is available at footnote 14.CAcarissma (talk) 00:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As the sources are either written by John, or by Notre Dame Law School he is closely affiliated with, I doubt in notability. Gryllida (talk) 02:31, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've already voted to keep the article as noted above. Please forgive any errors in form. Granted, there are article editors affiliated with Coughlin's teaching institutions but I think all contributing editors, myself included (although I've zero affiliation aside from being a fan of his work) have maintained a neutral POV throughout. IMHO, significant changes to the article in October eliminated the elements which assist the reader in understanding Coughlin's significant impact to the field in favor of a droll statement of interests. Rather than a wholesale rejection, the article is worth working on to improve. The key consideration at play here is notability. Being relatively new to the Wikipedia forum and doing my utmost to avoid any biting responses(comments suggest it's irregular for article editors to weigh in as they're immediately called out as suspect), I've dedicated much time to an exacting review of Wikipedia policies and guidelines on various considerations of notability when considering an academic article(To list one- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28academics%29). It's true Coughlin's h-index is 6 but it's also true the value of the measure has limitations as applied to the humanities. In particular, the field of Canon Law has a lackluster online presence which skews results. Coughlin meets the "Professor Test" - he's published two books by Oxford University Press, the first book is used is an introductory textbook for Divinity School Canon Law students in (at least) the US and Italy, he was a fully tenured and distinguished professor at Notre Dame, next year he will be the same at NYU, the Oxford Journal referenced above(http://ojlr.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/03/09/ojlr.rwt011) and many others (see newly listed third party resources at footnotes 15, 17, 18, 27, including comments about his work from Cardinal Burke, Prefect of the Vatican's highest court of Canon Law) describe his significant impact to academics in his fields of study, he's made a major impact outside of academics by way of his service to the Catholic Church and NYC through being a Knight of Malta and priest - all of which are handily proven by independent, reliable resources. As the time for consideration comes to a close, I urge all to see the big picture, keep the article and work together to see its improvement. Rgyhra (talk) 06:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC) Yhra[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 21:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

UFP Technologies

UFP Technologies (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)

Multiple editors have CSD'd this, most recently as A7. Between the text and references that were in former versions that are now on the talk page A7 does not apply. I am withholding my keep/delete until later but am doing this AFD now as a procedural matter so this can be settled without further notability-related CSDs. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 07:55, 27 December 2013 (UTC) Just to clarify, the nomination is procedural and the nominator is temporarily neutral, although this may change later in the discussion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 07:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by nominator The original author appears to be part of a group of inexperienced editors collaborating on creating business-related articles. They appear to be following a template. Some of the articles they create are clearly about notable companies. Some are clearly about non-notable companies. Some of the content they put in the articles is not suitable for Wikipedia. There is an effort underway to educate these editors. This fact should not prejudice the outcome of this AFD one way or the other. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 07:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question - how does one go about joining the group? DocumentError (talk) 08:03, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll answer on your talk page shortly. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 08:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly fails
WP:ORG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:21, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:21, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:22, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:48, 28 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Question. Would the creator of the article like to say if he has any relation, financial or otherwise, with the organization he writes about? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:48, 28 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

NOTE: This article is one of around 62 mass produced from stock exchange listings. All either PRODed now, or those that have run their 7 days at AfD have been deleted. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:07, 31 December 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bech-Bruun

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
csp
|username}}.

Bech-Bruun (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)

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by
WP:PROMOTION. Msnicki (talk) 08:37, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:28, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:28, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:29, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: An article from one of a country's largest newspapers which states that the firm after the merger rivals another firm's position as the largest in the industry in that country os a primary source? The source for revenues is copy-pasted from Wikipedia's own List of largest European law firms (excluding UK) (2012). I know that a Wikipedia page is never a relevant source but surely a source which is good enough for one article is also good enough for others, right? So shouldn't you pick on that list too then? Several smaller law firms on that list from comparable contries have articles. Looking through some categories of " law firms of XXX" from comparable countries, I see plenty of (poorly sourced) articles on law firms that are not are too small to be on that list. Based on that, I don't understand the grounds for questioning Bech-Bruun's notability. That is not to say that it is a particularly informative or well-sourced article, hence the stub tag. I can assure you that I have no interest in promoting anything here. I was simply tidying up Danish company categories and trying to get some missing ones started. Denmark was one of few comparable countries where not a single law firm was covered so covering a few of the largest ones seemed a sensible thing to do. I am not saying that size is the only criteria for establishing notability (U an aware that it isn't) but some of the other articles that I looked on about smaller firms certainly didn't make it clear what other criteria made that firm particularly notable. As for your unsuccessful google search, there are plenty of references to the company out there so I am not sure what you wanted to gind. If anything, this discussion should be of a more general character: Are to many similar firms covered? This firm is no more, no less notable than plenty of others.Ramblersen (talk) 03:01, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From
WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, "The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do or do not exist; because there is nothing stopping anyone from creating any article. ... Plenty of articles exist that probably should not. Equally, because articles must wait for someone who is interested in the subject to notice they are missing before they are created, a lot of articles do not exist that probably should. So just pointing out that an article on a similar subject exists does not prove that the article in question should also exist; it is quite possible that the other article should also be deleted but nobody has noticed it and listed it for deletion yet."
Both of these are what we refer to WP:Arguments to avoid. Msnicki (talk) 03:12, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
1) I do not agree that pointing out that a law firm is one of the largest (second largest) and most well-known in the industry in a particular country is a "Subject has X number of Y"-argument. I did not say that this firm is notable because it has x employees, y offices of revenues of z. I see a big difference here, perhaps you don't. 2) I did not say that this article should be kept because of what other articles are out there (I have already pointed out why I think it is notable), I simply pointed out that it would make sense to include other article in this discussion since I think you apply extremely restrictive criteria for notanility in this case tp get a more general discussion and a more consistant practice. So to make this point heard I should start mass-nominating law firm articles from other countries or what? I simply don't understand the basis for questioning the notability of this particular article. It would have been much more helpful if you had pointed out what sort of information would actually be able to establish notability, then I could try to provide it.Ramblersen (talk) 03:59, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, fair enough. What it takes, as explained at
WP:GNG, is significant coverage in multiple reliable independent secondary sources. Each of those words has a specific meaning here on Wikipedia. Significant means it can't be a bunch of trivial mentions. Multiple means more than one. Reliable means the source as reputation for fact-checking and editorial control. Independent means no connection to the subject. Secondary means that it contains the author's own thoughts, not merely a recitation of whatever the subject has published in, e.g., a press release. Individual editors may interpret these requirements differently but my sense is the gold standard is a couple 1000-word articles about the subject. We don't have that here. Hope that helps. Msnicki (talk) 05:44, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
What GNG actually says is "multiple sources are generally expected" (emphasis added). "Generally", in ordinary language, means "most of the time but there might be exceptional cases". James500 (talk) 22:15, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are exceptions, but we have guidance on what exceptions are allowed. See my earlier remark below re:
WP:CORPDEPTH#Commercial organizations. Msnicki (talk) 02:16, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

As regards GNG, "significant" is qualitative, not quantitative. A trivial mention is something like an entry in a phonebook or being cited as a source. GNG certainly does not require thousands of words, or anything approachingthat. Notability does not preclude the possibilityof merger into a broader topic, so length is not an issue in of itself in that regard. If this company is the second biggest law firm in Denmark, the worst case scenario is merger into, and redirectionto, a list of the biggest law firms or an article on law firms in Denmark or some supra-national area or something like that. James500 (talk) 11:13, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These are very helpful remarks explaining how we decide notability and how a subject that isn't sufficiently notable to stand as separate article might be merged into another one. It's also possible to request
userfication if you'd like to continue working on the article while you look for sources. Msnicki (talk) 19:36, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
"how a subject that isn't sufficiently notable to stand as separate article might be merged into another one" - No, what I said is that a topic can be notable, period, within the meaning of N and still end up being merged for other reasons. I infer from that that whether coverage is significanthas nothing to do with the number of column inches etc. A single sentence might be significantcoverage if what it says is sufficiently important, but it will only get a separate article if there is no suitable target for merger. James500 (talk) 21:58, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would have to be quite some sentence and I think I'd need to see it first. The exceptions would be matters of fact that we can accept in lieu of sources under the guidelines as creating a presumption of notability. For example, per
WP:CORPDEPTH#Commercial organizations. Msnicki (talk) 22:06, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Thank you for elaborating on the criteria for notability, Msnicki. What I don't get is why anyone would question that a law firm which is the second largest in a given country is able to meet the need for "significant coverage in multiple reliable independent secondary sources". There are numerous references to Bech Bruun in all major Danish media so I suppose only "significant' can be questioned. Here is a link to an analasis from Berlingske Media of the top 20 players in the Danish legal services industry. A search on FinanceWatch, an industry-based news service operated by JP/Politikens Hus, provides 30 pages of hits. Here are the 45 pages of hits on Dagbladet Børsen's (Denmark's leading business newspaper) website. By all means, all of these sources could contain only insignificant references to the firm, many no doubt do. But do you seriously doubt that plenty of them (as in multiple) contain information which could be used for an expansion of the current stub? Why would I want to request a userfication while I continue working on the article? I have no interestin writing a longer article about this firm, that is why I only made a stuch in the first place, something that I hardly ever do but Wikipedia condoles and is full of. As far as I have understood, it shouldn't take an expansion to stop a speedy deletion but just documention that the subject matter is notable. I have tried to do so and have already spend more time on this than I intended in the first place. And the initial speedy deletion-nominationøs claim that his stub is promotional and lacks reliable independent secondary sources is simply incorrect. All it does is to point out that Bech-Bruun is the second largest law firm in Denmark (in an attempt to document/indicate notability, I suppose the patient died), which does indeed follow from two independent, reliable sources (more than most stubs out there have) as well as Wikipedia's list of [[28]] (where one of the references is apparently good enough or should it be tagged or nominated?).Ramblersen (talk) 02:41, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Size alone is not sufficient to establish notability. The essence of notability is not that people should take note, but that they do take note and that they do it in reliable independent sources, offering their own secondary thoughts. Msnicki (talk) 03:16, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article currently cites
Jyllands Posten, two of Denmark's main newspapers. Is the nominator contending that these are not reliable sources? Or that those citations can not count towards notability for some other reason? So far as I can tell from my effectively non-existent knowledge of Danish, the coverage in the Berlingske article cited looks substantial enough to count towards notability, while the Jyllands Posten one, while slightly more than a passing mention, only helps very slightly towards notability. To the defenders of the article - can you find a couple more independent reliable sources that discuss Bech-Bruun in as much, or preferably more, detail as the Berlingske one? And, please, specific ones - just presenting other editors with search pages of results in a language most of us don't understand doesn't really help us come to a decision. PWilkinson (talk) 15:59, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

The problem with the newspaper sources is not reliability. The problem is that they offer only routine or trivial coverage and lack any secondary analysis. Did you try reading them with Google translate?
The Berlingske article (translated) reports only that the subject merged with another firm. The only quotes are from a managing partner of one firm and the chairman of the other. No additional analysis is given. This looks to me like routine coverage of the subject's press release, the reporter probably doing little more than trimming for length but happy to have a byline. From
WP:PRIMARY source.
The Jyllands-Posten article (translated) is even less helpful. It's not even about the subject, it's about a hotel chain taking space in an apartment building. The only mention of the subject is a single sentence mentioning that the subject will be moving into the building's upper floors. This is the essence of a trivial mention. Msnicki (talk) 18:47, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
I have (in vain) tried to ask for what sort of information would qualify as "non-trivial" in the eyes of those who question Bech-Bruun's notability. Most recently, the firm has received a lot of attention in Danish media after a DR documentary criticized a partner's involvement tax evasion. Here is an article which most definitely won't be based on a press release from the firm. Here is another critical article about the firm (from 2007) which won't be based on any press releases either. There are plenty of articles that document the firm's dominant position in the Danish market for legal services. I have added two references to the article's lead that descripes it as part of the "BIG Four" in Denmark. This analasis of the top 20 law firms in Denmark will also provide various details on Bech-Bruun's position but access to the analasis proper requires payment. I know that size in itself is not enough but a dominant market position within a fairly high-profile industry such as legal services (we are not talking a wholeseller of plastic boxes) should imo indicate notability. Lawyers from the firm are consistently referred to as "top attorneys" (topadvokater) in Danish media, see for instance here and here (critical) and here (critical). Here is a portrait of the firm's managing partner, Randi Bech-Poulsen, referring to her as the "attorney's first lady". Needless to say that attorneys from such a big and high-profile firm is involved in plenty of high-profile cases if that is of relevance. [ http://www.business.dk/forside/danske-topadvokater-satser-paa-kina This] article is about the opening of an office in Shanghai and the strategy behind it.[User:Ramblersen|Ramblersen]] (talk) 10:21, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't tried in vain to ask. I've answered. What you've tried in vain to do is offer up sources that I don't believe meet our guidelines for reasons I've cited. But different editors will have different takes on the matter. I'm just one. Perhaps others will join the discussion and there will be a
WP:ONEEVENT. Some editors might go for this. 3 is one sentence stating (vaguely) that the subject is growing. 4 is about one of the partners, not about the subject, except to say he works there. 5 talks about the Nielsen case and about the subject. This one is a possible. 6 adds nothing useful. 7 is about a female attorney who works there, not about the subject. 8 is about the subject's expansion to Shanghai. This is better than the merger story but still appears to have likely been written from the subject's press release. (Notice there are no quotes from anyone but the one managing partner.)
Other editors may go for this. I think it's still a bit weak. Let's see what others say. Msnicki (talk) 21:17, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: While it may not be a vanity entry, it certainly reads like one. The otherwise RS sources simply contain incidental mentions of subject. DocumentError (talk) 07:42, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. The entire discussion here is obviously based on the nominator's lack of familiarity with Danish sources. First of all, the firm is mentioned here in
Den Store Danske
, Denmark's most reliable encyclopaedia. Second, a quick search on Danish library sources turns up a long list of books:

https://www.bibliotek.dk/da/search/work/Bech-Bruun?sort=date_descending&qe[year.op][0]=year_eq&page_id=bibdk_frontpage#content

in which Bech-Bruun either contributes to the authoring or appears in discussion of legal matters of one kind or another. I fully agree with Ramblersen that it is important to include this firm in EN Wikipedia. When reading books about Denmark, I often consult Wikipedia to find background on the firms or authors mentioned. I imagine there must be many more like me. I have absolutely no doubt that there will be no difficulty in expanding on the article from reliable sources but a start needs to be made somewhere. Please allow the article's creator to continue with his valuable work. In my opinion, there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever about the firm's notability, even in regard to Wikipedia's criteria.--Ipigott (talk) 17:40, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would accept an actual article in an encyclopedia as a suitable source for establishing notability. But that's not what we have here. The Den Storee Danske page is obviously a wiki page. Notice the anonymous individuals listed as having created or edited the page. Wiki pages, even on otherwise suitable sites, are considered questionable sources and do not count towards notability per
WP:USERGENERATED. Msnicki (talk) 17:38, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Over 6000 hits in google books alone, obviously more than meets GNG. Actually one of Europe's biggest law firms it seems, google turns up nothing?? Really??? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:54, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CORPDEPTH, "Acceptable sources under this criterion include all types of reliable sources except works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as: ... the publications of telephone numbers, addresses, and directions in business directories". Msnicki (talk) 17:38, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

LOL, says who? The most important thing is that article subjects have wide coverage in multiple reliable sources. The fact that google books has so many potential sources immediately makes this a legitimate article. If you seriously think otherwise you have no place editing wikipedia. This doesn't stand a snowball in hell's chance of being deleted. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:31, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Says the sections of the guidelines I cited. Msnicki (talk) 02:24, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, again there should be better research done before posting AfDs, this firm is clearly notable (any firm with 70+ million Euro revenue is definately notable). --Soman (talk) 18:43, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm, no. A
WP:BIGNUMBER is not enough to establish notability. Msnicki (talk) 17:38, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Arbitrary page break because this page is so long that I am having real difficulty editing it

Keep. Satisfies GNG. The sources are not just in Danish either. There are books in English which discuss this firm such as The European Legal 500 by Pritchard. James500 (talk) 19:00, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only Legal 500 listing I could find appears to be merely a directory listing, which is not helpful in establishing notability, again per
WP:CORPDEPTH. Msnicki (talk) 17:38, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

You know perfectly well that I was referring to this series of books. James500 (talk) 01:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC) Try also these books: [29][30] James500 (talk) 01:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you mean when all you do is give a name but nothing more. It's supposed to mean you've looked at it and offer it up as a helpful source. But that's not when I'm finding. I searched on the publisher's site and found nothing useful there. I also looked at the sources in your new links and those also offer only directory listings. None of these satisfy
WP:CORPDEPTH. Have you found an article on one of these sources that's more than that? Msnicki (talk) 02:24, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

I would not characterize the material in those three books as "directory listings" and, having read CORPDEPTH carefully, I am not convinced that it is engaged. James500 (talk) 06:32, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Hmm. This AfD has languished for 5 days, then suddenly it gets 4 keeps, all offering non-guidelines-based reasons in less than 2 hours? This looks suspiciously like WP:Canvassing. Msnicki (talk) 17:38, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Um, has it occurred to you that several of us watch each other's edits?♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:33, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Has it occurred to you I wasn't born yesterday? Msnicki (talk) 20:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You know perfectly well that I got here through Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Law. James500 (talk) 01:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no way of knowing that. Msnicki (talk) 02:24, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It should be obvious from the extent of my presence on that page and in its archives. James500 (talk) 06:32, 27 December 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, Ethically ^(Yours) 07:04, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Upgrading to Strong Delete After reading Msnicki's well-reasoned arguments in this matter, I would like to upgrade my previously stated opinion from Delete to Strong Delete. Further, the "second-biggest" of anything is not prima facie evidence of notability, particularly in reference to small states like Denmark, Paraguay, etc., as some have suggested. DocumentError (talk) 07:54, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no real difference between "delete" and "strong delete". Deletion is very unlikely in this case because there are plausible targets for merger. I was told some time ago by another user that it was a rule of thumb that companies with revenues on the order of one hundred hundred million dollars were likely to receive significant coverage, so it would be suprising (but presumably not impossible) if this one hasn't. James500 (talk) 08:41, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to understand why there is a need for relisting. I have contributed additional content to the article since this discussion began and could add lots more which would even more clearly indicate the firm's notability. I strongly believe however that the information I have contributed to the article itself as well as the indications I have already given in the initial discussion (above) should be more than sufficient to justify notability. A Danish law firm's strong presence in China and Russia is also notable as is clear from their publications and discussion of their activities in independent publications. What particular type of information are the detractors actually looking for?? --Ipigott (talk) 15:25, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What additional content? You've contributed a single edit, adding a link to a wiki page, an obviously
WP:USERGENERATED source. Msnicki (talk) 16:52, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Good point about small states. The smallest firm on our
List of 100 largest law firms has $342 million in revenue. The subject's revenue of €76.9 million (= $106.1 million) is less than 1/3 that amount. How long would the list need to be to include them? The largest 1,000? Msnicki (talk) 17:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Great point! DocumentError (talk) 18:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No it isn't a good point at all. Djibouti's top law firm could earn $50 annually but it would still be notable if it was covered in multiple reliable sources. You couldn't possibly compare its earnings to some of the US giants. And it's the same with mainland Europe firms most of which are not going to be comparable to the top US firms in terms of revenue. This firm is ranked 39th in mainland Europe in earnings so it's hardly a local low status law firm.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:39, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A thousand entries is not obviously innappropriate are there are commercially published lists of that length:[31] [32]. And here is a bibliography of some more of these publications which specifically mentions books with 1000 and 700 entries respectively. And a description of another. James500 (talk) 23:12, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And there is nothing to stop us from having a list of the biggest law firms by country. And that would be entirely appropriate because these countries have their own independent legal systems that are run in different ways. James500 (talk) 23:27, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a directory per
WP:LISTN. Msnicki (talk) 02:05, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
I can't see how NOTDIRECTORY is applicable to this. Also VAGUEWAVE. Which one of the six criteria do you think is engaged and why? James500 (talk) 02:26, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing
WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Msnicki (talk) 02:32, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

It is not clear to me that NOTDIRECTORY says any such thing. Could you please pick out the specific words that you think are applicable. James500 (talk) 02:54, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed." Msnicki (talk) 06:23, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you seriously think that the current article is a directory listing or that it doesn't already pass general notability guidelines and our verification policies then you really have no place editing wikipedia. You're continuing to argue a point with no credibility or claim to delete. The article doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell in being deleted. Accept it and move on.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:00, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A list of the thousand largest law firms would clearly not be "a directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed".
List of everything would be, but the list I suggested would not be even remotely close to that. James500 (talk) 09:04, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment. As for the supposedly good point about small states and the firm not making the
List of 100 largest law firms by revenue, where in Wikipedia's guidelines does it say that something should be among the 100 largest of something to be notable? And you sure have a lot of cleaning up to do. Have a look at this List of largest U.S. law firms by number of lawyers where plenty of firms outside Top 100 are covered all the way down to Dow Lohnes as #346 (and the few that are not covered are all red linked so I assume someone finds them notable). So I REALLY hope that it will be okay to cover more than the 100 largest law firms worldwide or not much will be left for the rest of the world. And does your 'Top 100 of something' arguments also apply to other industries? Or, more generally, other subjects? As fot the 'small state' argument, New Zealand, an economy considerably smaller than that of Denmark, has 11 articles in Category:Law firms of New Zealand and they even have Template:Law firms of New Zealand. Just to pick a random example. I know that you cannot use other articles' existence to argue that this one should be kept (cf. the above discussion) but we should try to apply objective and consistant standards on Wikipedia, right?Ramblersen (talk) 06:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong keep For obvious reasons. Easily passes GNG. Bad faith and highly irritating behaviour by the nominator who ought to be trout slapped for behaving in this manner.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:13, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You already !voted. Please
WP:AGF. Personal attacks do not help. Msnicki (talk) 16:09, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

It has been relisted, how dare you strike out my vote.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:42, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting does not give you another !vote. It invites other editors to !vote. Msnicki (talk)
No, it is what it says on the tin, a relisted AFD.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:55, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Various different reliable independent sources tell us the firm was founded in 1872, lately merged with another firm, is part of the big four legal firms in Denmark, has moved into grandiose headquarters along Copenhagen harbor, is expanding in China etc. etc. This is clearly a notable firm. Notability is nothing to do with size, only with whether the subject has been noted. With that amount of coverage it would be notable even if it only had two partners, both semi-retired. (If it is relevant, I came across this discussion because I was watching Blofeld's edits.) Aymatth2 (talk) 14:15, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arguing
argument to avoid. Msnicki (talk) 16:09, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

You're becoming extremely tiresome. Read what I say about people who essay war on my user page.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:44, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - One of four major recognized legal firms. Plenty of sources, plenty of coverage to meet GNG. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:23, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For the reasons already stated (if I am allowed to vote on this, being the creator of this surprisingly controversial stub, I wouldn't know since I usually don't waste my time on futile discussions like this). @ Msnicki: I miss a comment on the List of largest U.S. law firms by number of lawyers. You seem better at rejecting other people's arguments than looking on your own. What reads like a directory here, that list or the Bech-Bruun stub?Ramblersen (talk) 16:57, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And if we can have several hundred articles on US law firms why would it be a major problem having 3 or 4 articles on top Danish law firms? If anything we ought to have at least 20 articles. So long as they're well sourced and encyclopedic. Sometimes OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is the best way to show why something is acceptable (aside from having hundreds of possible sources of course). As it stands we have several reliable sources which claim a] It is one of the 500 most notable law firms in the world. b] It is a first-tier rated law firm, meaning it presumably represents the highest level of legal firm practice globally c] It is cited as one of the major 4 law firms of Denmark. What part about this don't you get? It is easily notable. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:19, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes,
WP:LISTN. I'm not here to defend the guidelines. I just try to follow them. Msnicki (talk) 17:44, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Ignore silly essays which were written by editors like you or I as a rough guide. They generally contradict each other. Common sense dictates that this is a notable firm as one of the top 4 Danish legal firms and the article more than asserts notability. I agree though that it needs a lot of work and needs a lot of new content to really make it a good article. As I say above earnings don't really matter, it's the amount of sources which document something which matters to an encyclopedia. And you can't really compare most companies worldwide to some of the top earning US firms. It doesn't mean they're not notable.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:56, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. More than enough sources to meet GNG. The article isn't in the best of shape and could be much better, but that certainly is no reason to delete a notable enough subject. - SchroCat (talk) 17:18, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I remain unconvinced there are sources to establish notability. I've looked at every one that's been presented. I don't believe lots of trivial mentions or directory listings meet
WP:GNG. But the numbers are clearly against me and I concede it's unlikely any admin would close this as anything but keep, regardless of the arguments. It's also become just too, too unpleasant. Personal remarks simply do not help the quality of any discussion. I've offered one final response to Ramblersen who's disagreed but been respectful. But otherwise, I'm done. Happy holidays, folks. Hope you have a nice 2014. Msnicki (talk) 17:44, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Well you would do as you can't accept fault on your part that this is actually notable. I don't see any personal attacks on here. Trout slapping is a commonly used term on here for an established editor who does something contrary to policy. I strongly suggest you look about the website and try to reeducate yourself in what is generally accepted here. We're an open encyclopedia, and as long as articles are backed with multiple reliable sources which at least illustrate some form of notability they're generally accepted. That the company is ranked 39th in terms on earnings on the European continent and one of the top four law firms of Denmark in itself should convince you it is likely worthy of note. I can think of some top film companies in the developing world and even some top US law articles which have very little in terms of extensive coverage about them as establishments in books other than press reports of their releases/cases.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:48, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it clearly meets
WP:GNG requirements. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:38, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. As it is included in the on-line encyclopaedia Den Store Danske, published by a large and reputable Danish publisher, there is really no doubt about the notability of the firm. I guess one could argue that Denmark as a whole is just too small and insignificant to need coverage in (the English) Wikipedia, but assuming one agrees that Wikipedia should cover Denmark and Danish society, what should then be regarded as of greater weight in that society and of higher priority to an encyclopaedia: a major law firm, such as Bech-Bruun, or teenage footballers such as Mads Aaquist, Danny Amankwaa, Jacob Dehn Andersen, Kristian Andersen, or Lucas Andersen (just to pick some from the early part of the alphabet)? What do the professional encyclopaedia editors say? Have these young boys been included in any major Danish encyclopaedia? --Hegvald (talk) 03:18, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. When we delete something on notability grounds, we're saying that it's unworthy to be included in an encyclopedia. When the professionals include it in an encyclopedia, who are we to tell them that they're wrong? I don't particularly care about any of the arguments presented above Hegvald's, because his is conclusive — if a professional encyclopedia article can be written on Bech-Bruun, we can have one as well. Nyttend (talk) 21:25, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Am I really the only person here who's actually looked at that Den Store Daske "article" to realize it's not an encyclopedia article at all, it's actually just a
WP:USERGENERATED wiki page hosted on the Den Store Danske site? I know this AfD is headed for keep, but oh, my. Msnicki (talk) 23:08, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Ed (Edgar181) 00:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Venomics

Venomics (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 yet another of the very extensive series of articles, now almost all deleted, on various components on the EC Framework programs, all of which, like this one, talk about their plans for doing research, long before they have actually accomplished everything. NOT CRYSTAL is the relevant principle. I think this is probably copypaste, but it would be just as not yet notable if rewritten. DGG ( talk ) 06:24, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Atomic Delete This should never have existed in the first place. DocumentError (talk) 06:35, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nuke it Agree with nom and DocumentError. Most of these projects never become notable as a project, even though they may be composed of highly notable researchers. All too often, these "collaborative" projects are anything but. They just argue that they'll be collaborating to get the research money and then each component goes its own way. Unless there are sources actually showing that such an ephemeral project actually accomplished something and that something is being covered in RS, these articles should indeed not exist. Most of the times, article creators don't bother with these articles any more once created and I just
boldly redirect them to Framework Programmes for Research and Technological Development, only bothering to take them to AfD if the redirect is reverted. As an aside, these project articles almost all claim to be "EU Commission projects", but have as much to do with the EU Commission as any project funded by a US government agency like NIH could claim to be "funded by the Obama administration". --Randykitty (talk) 11:10, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Great and salient point by Randykitty vis a vis the EUC. DocumentError (talk) 18:09, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:16, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:16, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:16, 28 December 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. Thanks everyone for participating. :) Please
SarahStierch (talk) 03:52, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Stabbing of Scott Jones

Stabbing of Scott Jones (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)

As sad as this story is, I'm not seeing a very compelling reason here why it would lift beyond
notability necessary to merit its own full standalone article. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 06:10, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete agree on all per nom DocumentError (talk) 06:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 15:44, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 15:44, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 15:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 15:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the fact that it has been covered alot because of the "gay angle" of the story and possible hate crime makes this article pass WP:GNG. --BabbaQ (talk) 16:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article as written has to rely on
unreliable sources (including the webpage of a fundraising campaign) just to get up to five reference tags. That's certainly not my definition of "covered enough to get past GNG". Bearcat (talk) 04:31, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete (or redirect to one of the articles mentioned in the nom). If all the irrelevant text, non-encyclopedic content (e.g. "Donations can be made through ..."), reported speculation etc was removed very little would remain in this article.
WP:NOTNEWS. DexDor (talk) 06:48, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Unfortunately, people are stabbed all the time. That the motive for this particular stabbing may be an example of a hate crime lifts this very, very slightly above the run of the mill, but it's best to simply refer to the incident as part of a wider article on the subject. --gilgongo (talk) 16:35, 28 December 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. Thanks everyone for participating. :) Please
SarahStierch (talk) 03:52, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Bonita Platinum

Bonita Platinum (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 product. And promotional, in its misleading use of references: The drink did not actually win any awards-- it placed in the bronze category along with dozens of other similar drinks. Everything else here is pure PR. DGG ( talk ) 06:02, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree all per nom DocumentError (talk) 06:04, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Endorsing DGG's rationale. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:09, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:09, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:10, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There are plenty of lightweight sources in the article but together they don't add up to coverage that is significant enough to clearly determine notability for a stand alone product article.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Thanks everyone for participating. :) Please
SarahStierch (talk) 03:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Scott Beaudin

Scott Beaudin (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)

talk) 05:21, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete agree all per nom DocumentError (talk) 06:05, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Brief research indicates no notable Ghits for anything other than just doing the job of a minor voice actor. --gilgongo (talk) 00:25, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:07, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:08, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I am User:Tristan.Andrade.136 and I think I should not be deleted of Scott Beaudin

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

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

The result was redirect to
SarahStierch (talk) 03:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Steve Vaught

Steve Vaught (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)

Talk page discussion suggests that there were prior concerns. Well, some of the information, based on his Web site, is no longer well-attested due to the Web site apparently being no longer operative. Seems to be a
WP:15M situation. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 04:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. While mildly interesting in terms of the controversy, the citations don't support it well enough. A long walk, even if you are fat, does not a Wikipedia entry make. --gilgongo (talk) 00:29, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:05, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:05, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to List of people who have walked across the United States#Steve Vaught. Based on supplied references and a search, his notability was a flash-in-the-pan, BLP1E type event -- and has not developed into wider notability via books, movies etc. as he apparently hoped it would. --MelanieN (talk) 23:53, 29 December 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 to
SarahStierch (talk) 03:50, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Jermaine Reed

Jermaine Reed (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)

Very detailed, but none of it is notable by any reasonable standard. If the GNG alone is enough to justify this, then we need to re-examine the rationale. DGG ( talk ) 04:29, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sure, delete it. DocumentError (talk) 06:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All the sources are local, as one might expect in a case such as this. I would probably be more conflicted about this article if it hadn't been an autobiography. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:52, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Becoming an elected official is not in itself notable. Unless the subject has used that office to actually achieve something that somebody in that position might not reasonably be expected to achieve, then this article is not about anyone notable. --gilgongo (talk) 00:33, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it is for many positions. We write articles for people before they're even sworn into office, when they've literally accomplished nothing notable besides winning an election. US Representatives, state legislators, and city councilmembers for cities about twice as large as Kansas City are all presumed to be notable. -LtNOWIS (talk) 20:50, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:54, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:54, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
Kansas City, Missouri City Council to preserve the search term. -LtNOWIS (talk) 20:50, 28 December 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. Thanks everyone for participating. :) Please
SarahStierch (talk) 03:49, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Patrick Tiquet

Patrick Tiquet (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 computer businessperson may be sufficiently notable — but certainly nothing in the article shows that — and the descriptions make it difficult to tell just how notable or not he is. As it stands, delete unless there is further showing of notability. --Nlu (talk) 04:23, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete obvious vanity article DocumentError (talk) 06:40, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete shows absolutely nothing notable beyond just doing a job for which he's paid for. --gilgongo (talk) 00:37, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:56, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:56, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:56, 28 December 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 keep. I'm withdrawing the AfD on the basis of comments form people whose judgment I trust. DGG ( talk ) 16:51, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Master as I Saw Him

The Master as I Saw Him (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 see no evidence that this particular book is of any importance, though I do recognize the difficult of finding usable sources in this field. DGG ( talk ) 04:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another classic book nominated for deletion. This review will say everything. Widely used as reference in scholarly books. --Tito☸Dutta 04:49, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have a feeling that there are probably more sources in other languages, but I found enough to show where this book is particularly well thought of as a classic text of Nivedita's. It's mentioned extensively in a few scholarly books and it's used as a source fairly frequently in others.
(｡◕‿◕｡) 05:08, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per
Tokyogirl79 DocumentError (talk) 06:12, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep: Agree with
Tokyogirl79, a quick search on Bengali Google puts up some decent hits. Ethically ^(Yours) 12:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:51, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:52, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:52, 28 December 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. Keeping for now based on discussion.
SarahStierch (talk) 03:49, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Rousing Call to Hindu Nation

Rousing Call to Hindu Nation (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 see no evidence that this particular book is of any particular importance. DGG ( talk ) 04:12, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the first time that I have seen Indian best-seller and landmark books are being nominated for deletion. About RctHN Rousing Call to Hindu Nation, and translated into all major Bharatiya languages, became a favourite among the educated youth This notable book is widely used as reference everywhere. --Tito☸Dutta 04:44, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral The book is obviously notable by application of common sense but, in the absence of a better sourced article, I have a hard time expressing an opinion in favor of keeping this entry. I'd be just as fine seeing it deleted. Given the noteworthiness of the subject, we'd be more likely to see an adequately cited and referenced recreation spring-up in a fairly quick period of time if there was no entry for this book, versus what is - in essence - a placeholder. DocumentError (talk) 06:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@
WP:INDAFD Tito☸Dutta 07:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Great. As I said, this book is obviously notable. DocumentError (talk) 07:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"we'd be more likely to see an adequately cited and referenced recreation spring-up in a fairly quick period of time if there was no entry for this book, versus what is - in essence - a placeholder" - That is manifestly not true. Only registered users can create new articles, so we would immediately exclude a large number of editors from the equation by deleting the article. And even a one sentence stub reduces the amount of typing that has to be done. James500 (talk) 14:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:45, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:45, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:48, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I recognize the difficulty of locating usable sourcing for books in this area. But without it, how can we tell which books are significant and which books are not? That one person regards a book highly is not notability. Translations can be, even though it is fairly common for religious and inspirational and political material to be translated into as many languages as possible. Are all his books translated into multiple languages? Can you prove the translations? When I write an article about a book, I add publication information for every individual translation I can identify. DGG ( talk ) 16:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG:, I found that "translation" information in Google Book's snippet view. Yes it is very difficult to find sources in this area. You have to do everything manually. I have just found this news article which mentions the book. --Tito☸Dutta 07:48, 30 December 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. Thanks everyone for participating. :) Please
SarahStierch (talk) 03:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Saru Jayaraman

Saru Jayaraman (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)

basically promotional, same as her organization (adjacent afd) DGG ( talk ) 03:27, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (
^Notify_Online 03:39, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:43, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:43, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:43, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If there is enough notability for an article, it would be better to start from scratch as this is irredeemably too promotional. --Randykitty (talk) 10:40, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No pass of
WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:48, 29 December 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/NO DELETION. The nominator said "the topic is notable," and several others agreed. So the main concern is whether or not the article should be merged/blanked and redirected to
History of the Jews in Aden or whether sources and text from History of the Jews in Aden should be carried back to 1947 Aden pogrom article. In either case that discussion can take place on the article talk pages especially since the nominator has agreed to a no delete closure. (non-admin closure) — Keithbob • Talk • 22:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

1947 Aden pogrom

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)

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

This article began life as a copyvio from an unreliable book. Although the topic is notable, the event is already covered in greater depth and with much better sources at
History of the Jews in Aden#Anti-Jewish riots in Aden. Strictly speaking I'm asking for this article to be merged into History of the Jews in Aden, but the reality is that there is little or nothing here worth saving. I don't see the point of having a separate article under these circumstances.Zero^talk 03:30, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete no merge, delete (all reasons per nom, however, to clarify I only support delete in this case and oppose a merge) DocumentError (talk) 03:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It should have its own page like the other pages about specific pogroms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.121.147 (talk) 04:19, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly a notable historical event, resulting in the death of 82 people. Currently the event is over-weighted in
History of the Jews in Aden, where it is the largest section. That article needs to be expanded and the pogrom broken out separately. Given the amount of fancruft, video-game trivia, self-written promotions and sheer garbage in Wikipedia, it was startling and bizarre to find this article on the AfD list. Coretheapple (talk) 19:46, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom; there's nothing worth saving. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:49, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing worth saving? Really? Is it your contention that this is not a notable event? If there are problems with the sourcing, such as the copyright violation asserted in the nomination, they can be corrected. Coretheapple (talk) 13:27, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is a very strange statement on your behalf Malik; from my notion of modern Middle Eastern history one can easily make parallels between the November 1947 massacre in Aden and the Dir Yassin massacre in Mandatory Palestine (except that in Aden there were no arms held on behalf of the Jews), and the consequent effect on Jewish exodus from Yemen and Aden in parallel with the Palestinian exodus of 1948. Both btw also took place in British controlled areas.GreyShark (dibra) 13:30, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An essential part of history and necessary to be preserved as is. Needs more expansion, as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.172.209 (talk) 00:18, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Needs expanding to better record a clearly notable event though. Either that or merge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gilgongo (talk • contribs) 00:40, 28 December 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:GNG, but needs expansion asap.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:25, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What needs to be done is to copy the relevant portion from
WP:CWW, and leaving a summary in that article. I've added some bare-bones text that I've taken from contemporary news accounts, but it really needs expansion either from the other article or from other textual material available from histories of the region. I've posted a note in the relevant project. Coretheapple (talk) 17:38, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - clear-cut case of a notable event in the modern Middle East [33], with a profound event on the Jewish history in the region. I wonder though why Zero is asking delete this article instead of improving it.GreyShark (dibra) 07:30, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As proposer: Since this is going to fail, I don't mind if it is now closed "no deletion". Zero^talk 09:28, 29 December 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. She's already merged into Miss California. Thanks everyone for participating. :) Please
SarahStierch (talk) 03:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Tiffany Stoker

Tiffany Stoker (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)

Is this Miss California sufficiently notable? No guideline says that winning such a contest is sufficient for notability, and I see no other claims of notability. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 03:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nope. DocumentError (talk) 03:29, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Merge with (if not already) Miss_California --gilgongo (talk) 00:44, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:39, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:39, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:39, 28 December 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 keep per
WP:SK#1. The nominator rescinded the nomination, and no delete !votes are present. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:20, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Li Yang (sport shooter)

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Li Yang (sport shooter)

Li Yang (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-qualifying, 16th place participant in a minor sport (shooting) during one Olympic games. [Note that this is a different Li Yang from the Li Yang of Crazy English who was alleged to have threatened to shoot his wife.] DocumentError (talk) 03:19, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep According to our guideline
WP:NOLYMPICS, "Athletes from any sport are presumed notable if they have competed at the Summer or Winter Olympic games". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:14, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Agree with Cullen328; I referenced the wrong section of the amateur sports notability guidelines prior to making this nomination and did not notice this guideline. I rescind my nomination. DocumentError (talk) 05:20, 27 December 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. Thanks everyone for participating. :) Please
SarahStierch (talk) 03:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Tropical Depression 01L

Tropical Depression 01L (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 this article is pointless and a little dumb. ATL system's aren't officially known as 1L and even if it was, the list is no where near complete. It stops at 2000. Why, 2000? That ill never know. Systems have been designated for over 50 years, so why aren't these listed? If we re-titled this
^Pacific ^Hurricane 02:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete delete delete DocumentError (talk) 02:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pointless, trivial list that is just weird. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 27 December 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. Secret ^account 03:51, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge (singer)

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 no particular evidence this individual might be notable; the sources simply don't bear it out. Basically, every source presented in the article is garbage, but if we are to be more precise, we have:

The official site of a show (and no mention of Jorge, except to say he's started cooking)

Jorge's photo album

A blog post in a girls' magazine about how Jorge looked a few years ago

The official site of another show, with a link to a video of Jorge's appearance there

A YouTube video of a song

Likewise

An article in Libertatea, a tabloid, which in any case barely devotes a couple of lines to Jorge

In sum, we have here a minor celebrity not covered in any sort of depth by reliable sources who has no claim to belonging in an encyclopedia. - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:49, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Get 'im outta here! (deletion support per nom) DocumentError (talk) 03:01, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk to me What did he do now? 03:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - I see a slew of new "references" have been added. But when those "references" take the form of more YouTube videos, videos on
WP:RS. If not, delete, and don't flood the project with junk. - Biruitorul ^Talk 22:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:37, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:37, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article was created by a sockpuppet of the banned user User:Beleiutz, who is notorious for spamming promotional, copyright-violating crap into articles on Romanian celebrities. I have accordingly tagged it for speedy deletion. —Psychonaut (talk) 23:57, 28 December 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. Thanks everyone for participating. :) Please
SarahStierch (talk) 03:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Neo (personal computers manufacturer)

Neo (personal computers manufacturer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Blake Gripling (talk) 02:41, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't appear to be notable enough for an article about the technology firm. There are news items about the company in ABS-CBN News (more specifically a report about a $400 netbook back in 2008) and Manila Times, but such news reports are few and far behind. Blake Gripling (talk) 02:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable DocumentError (talk) 03:04, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I did get a few hits from major newspapers for this company but I hesitate to add them to the article since they look like press releases. I've added a bullet list below if you want to check them out.

Philippine Daily Inquirer

Tempo, a Manila Bulletin newspaper

Philippine Star

--Lenticel ^(talk) 05:40, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:33, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - All that seems to exist are press releases.
csdnew 01:40, 29 December 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--Ymblanter (talk) 09:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Lord

Joe Lord (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A mayor of a town with a population of 2400 is not notable. Article comes from the expected place, AfC. I don't think it would pass speedy A7, because nobody who understands the meaning of an encyclopedia would think it significant encyclopedic content. DGG ( talk ) 02:36, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The 20 year-old mayor schtick is meaningless for notability. Sorry, Mayor Lord. DocumentError (talk) 03:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:28, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:28, 28 December 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.
It is a shame that hard work and sacrifices to get to this position, including representing the UK at International Conference level, is regarded as 'mayor schtick'. Ah well, maybe he won't mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.158.84 (talk) 14:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. per
WP:BEFORE prior to nomination would have avoided this AFD entirely. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 18:54, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Ștefan Hrușcă

Ștefan Hrușcă (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 seasonal Hungarian folk singer DocumentError (talk) 01:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This nomination may have been executed incompletely: there's residual AfD instructions at the top of the article. Also, the Romanian Wikipedia article appears to include considerably more evidence of this person's notability. [34] --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:14, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Romanian wikipedia page references 3 very incidental mentions of subject in a small-circulation Romaninan tabloid. And his own website. DocumentError (talk) 02:27, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - important cultural figure, essentially synonymous with Romanian Christmas caroling for his generation. Aside from the references provided at ro.wiki (and no, neither Jurnalul Național nor Evenimentul Zilei are tabloids, and yes, those articles cover him in depth), see here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here - all of these are first-rate national newspapers that devoted entire articles to him.

And DocumentError, before making this kind of nomination, it helps not only to search for the subject, but also to get the basic facts right. Romania, Hungary. Romania, Hungary. Romania, Hungary. Learn the difference. Hrușcă is from Romania. He is not from Hungary. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:05, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

North Dakota, South Dakota DocumentError (talk) 03:08, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Biruitorul's analysis of the evidence. --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly enough coverage to be considered notable. --Michig (talk) 10:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hungarian singer?! Are you kidding? He is an iconic Romanian Christmas carols singer, very famous in Romania. Basically Romanians can't imagine a Christmas without his songs. Ridiculous request. --Codrin.B (talk) 15:22, 27 December 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pioneers of Alaska

Pioneers of Alaska (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 a one-sentence article with one reference (to the organization's own website) which returns a broken link. No substantial edit (more than adding categories) has been made to it in over a year, indicating the situation is not likely to improve anytime soon. In exercising due caution prior to submitting this entry, I searched the Google News archives for the 100 year period from Jan. 1, 1920 to Jan. 1, 2013 [35]] and found no mention of this organization, which raises serious question as to its notability. DocumentError (talk) 01:36, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (
^Notify_Online 01:52, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: Here is the correct link. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 02:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added possible references to the talk page. I will copy them to the AFD talk page shortly. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Delete without prejudice to re-creation ("soft delete") - topic may be be notable but more research is required. Even if notable, it may be better to have no article than a 1-line stub. It may be better to write a combined article about late 19th-century/early-20th century civic organizations in Alaska, the Yukon territory, and surrounding areas.
WP:SNOWing. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 08:24, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Another comment: searching Google Books, however, produces much more promising results. Search, for example, "Grand Igloo"— a phrase unique to this organization. See also [36] [37]. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 02:20, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of references somewhere, can't be used as justification for the permanence of a one-sentence Wikipedia article. If we want to delete this for being non-encyclopedic, instead of non-notable, that's fine. Obviously this article in its current iteration is unacceptable and there appears to be no effort underway or imminent to bring it up to some minimum standard of content, composition and citation. DocumentError (talk) 02:23, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since when are stubs deleted? An article is deleted only if it either its subject is unworthy of encyclopedia (by being non-notable) or its text is problematic, when
WP:TNT is applied. A one-line well formatted stub, if it can be referenced, has no reason not to exist. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 03:12, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Correct, this is an unworthy subject. DocumentError (talk) 03:15, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You distinguish "notable" from "encyclopedic" subjects. For the purposes of Wikipedia, what is the difference? הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 03:24, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Google News Archive doesn't really work anymore (see Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 44#Google news archive search? and Template talk:Find sources multi), so I wouldn't draw any conclusions from the absence of search results. Here's one interesting article from 1919 [38]. A HighBeam search turns up some results, including this one from 2012 noting that the organization's building in Cordova was being added to the NRHP. [39] The nominator is flatly wrong to assert that an article should be deleted because it's currently sketchy: that's how articles often get started here. We improve, not delete, such topics. --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:30, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Google News search was a last ditch attempt by me to attempt to establish notability prior to nomination and is acceptable to that end. It was not an exhaustive attempt to source an entry, which is the responsibility of the creating editor. I agree "we improve, not delete" - so, are you going to improve this one? Because no one has substantively touched it in more than a year. A patently unacceptable article cannot be maintained in the hope that eventually, someone, maybe might improve it. This article passed an AfD review a couple years ago on that exact hope. Since then, it has still not managed to break the 1-sentence barrier. In consideration of the fact that the hopes of the first AfD that the article would improve have collapsed, this article needs to be deleted in the absence of a strategy for improvement. Hope is not a strategy. DocumentError (talk) 02:51, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the old AFD? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:05, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found significant coverage in a book called Memoirs of a Yukon Priest, and a book called Alaska Curiosities: Quirky Characters, Roadside Oddities & Other Offbeat Stuff. The Alaska Historical Commission published a book called Pioneers of Alaska 1900-1970 Project about the group's membership. The group is mentioned in the Encyclopedia of Local History. Its publications are cited twice in Alaska History: An Annotated Bibliography. A book the group published is discussed in Alaska Mining History: A Source Document. Alaska's Digital Archives contains 34 documents about the group, some of which could be used to expand the article. I found an article called Women gain an equal role in Pioneers of Alaska in the Peninsula Clarion, with significant coverage of the group. I found an article called 2011 Pioneers of Alaska regents both history fans in the Juneau Empire. I think that should suffice. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:53, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - that will suffice! So you're volunteering to update the article then? (Or is the plan to keep these voluminous sources to ourselves in the AfD archives for another 2 years until it gets re-nominated?) DocumentError (talk) 04:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a friendly suggestion, DocumentError: I handed you, the nominator who claimed the topic wasn't notable, a big stack of reliable sources on a platter. Why don't you expand the article and withdraw the nomination? If you don't expand it, I will. But please remember that AfD is not cleanup, and I don't operate an "edit on demand" service for you or anyone else. I am a volunteer. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:15, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I, also, do not operate an "edit on demand" service. I have no interest in this topic and no plan to expand it, irrespective of how many sources are provided here or elsewhere. This is the underlying issue, per my OP nom; this 13-word article has been untouched since it was created years ago. Its only cited source is to org's own website. It cannot languish in suspended animation because we hope some unknown person will, at some unknown point in the undetermined future, bring it up to a minimum standard of quality. After three years in Narnia it either needs to be deleted or improved. Wikipedia is not a hoarder's den or a place to pack-rat one sentence acknowledgments that organizations exist. Do you plan to improve it, or do you know someone who will? If not, why don't you agree with me to delete it and welcome its recreation in the future, as per davidwr's suggestion? DocumentError (talk) 05:14, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is your personal view (expressed on other recent AfD's, I believe), but not Wikipedia's policy on deletion.
WP:NOTCLEANUP addresses your belief exactly. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 05:35, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
As I stated previously DocumentError, I will expand the article since you decline to do so. I have expanded and referenced hundreds of articles on notable topics and will do the same for this one. I am an encyclopedist not an aggressive deletionist. On the broader philosophical point, we simply don't delete stubs about notable topics, nor do we delete articles just because they haven't been edited in a while. I will recommend keeping articles about notable topics 100% of the time. There is no rush and there are no deadlines. However, if I conclude that a topic isn't notable, I am happy to see the article deleted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:44, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great! In response to
WP:PG. On behalf of those of us whose only tool is a hammer, I thank you for your service in offering a theoretical basis for the morality and ethics of our actions. DocumentError (talk) 06:01, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep First off, as previously alluded to, how is this a 2nd nomination when we're not seeing any evidence of a 1st nomination? I figured out years ago that how an article is constructed often determines what attention it attracts, which is the only reason I can see for this AfD. In the case of this article, it was created as a coatrack to another article on some random NRHP listing, by an editor with a years-long history of conflict with other NRHP regulars over mass-creating content of dubious value. This same editor assessed the article as low importance for
WP:ALASKA, when this is really a high importance topic for that project. To echo Cullen's comments, I have neither the time nor the inclination to clean up everyone's messes for them. As to the organization itself, the Pioneers have existed for over a century, have sponsored numerous works related to chronicling Alaska history (mostly books, though here in Fairbanks they also operate a museum), and held significant political sway throughout Alaska until about 25 or 30 years ago (and still do in parts of Alaska; the story of the numerous name changes of Pioneer Park has not been fully told, but what has been told offers insight as to the group's influence). As also referred to above, the Pioneers are one of many fraternal organizations to emerge from mining camps and towns, but it's the only one of those organizations which is still going strong today. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 05:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

With the exception of RadioKAOS' "Keep" note, I agree with all of his other points through the sentence that ends "...mass-creating content of dubious value" and am neutral on everything after that. Fortunately Cullen328 has generously offered to fix all the issues with this article forthwith and I am glad this AfD will result in improvement of WP, even if it did not result in an article deletion. DocumentError (talk) 06:24, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have started expanding the article, and have added three reliable, independent sources so far. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:02, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Already a 100% improvement! DocumentError (talk) 07:21, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - For future benefit, I have moved this AFD to the correct title as there is no record of a previous nomination. As it is likely to be snow kept, this will make things easier on everyone. I believe I have cleaned up properly, but please let me know if I missed anything. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 19:25, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources cited above demonstrate notability.James500 (talk) 23:06, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Agreed. More documentation needed, but decidedly a notable organization. Along the lines of the Society of California Pioneers. BrianThibodeaux (talk) 00:12, 29 December 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) 02:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Albert B. Brown

Albert B. Brown (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)

It has been long established (see
WP:SOLDIER) that recipients of single second-level decorations are not notable enough for articles failing some other reason for notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:11, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:11, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:11, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:11, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm seeing several primary sources online, and having used the Sandusky-Erie County Library, I know that they've got tons of local history resources, so I expect that there are other primary sources in print; consequently I expect that someone could produce enough secondary sources for WP:BIO to be satisfied. However, I'm quite confident that they don't yet exist, so at the moment he doesn't qualify under our notability criteria. Nyttend (talk) 15:24, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Although coverage in local newspapers to the effect that "local man wins medal" is not really sufficient coverage to prove notability for Wikipedia. You could find that for pretty much anyone who was decorated or killed in action. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that they probably have tons of primary sources, e.g. his genealogy and lots of other documentation, and from that someone could probably produce a bunch of secondary sources and make him notable. At the same time, I'm saying that the secondary sources don't seem to exist, so we shouldn't wait until someone produces them. Nyttend (talk) 05:01, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I realised what your point was. But my point was that any sources are likely to be genealogical and local and not really sufficient to make him notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, you didn't realise. My point is that they're primary and insufficient for notability, but someone could produce secondary sources, publish them through reliable presses, and get enough to make him notable. We don't care how miniscule someone is in real life: if they get multiple solid secondary sources somehow, they're notable. It's just that this isn't likely to happen, and it definitely hasn't happened yet. Nyttend (talk) 13:42, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I realise your point entirely. What I am saying is that even if someone did write a book about him it would undoubtedly be just a local/genealogical history which would still not make him notable. Just having a book written about you does not make you notable. It depends on the book (or books). -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:16, 20 December 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, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:51, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete absolutely delete this - I concur with all points made by Necrothesp without exception. DocumentError (talk) 03:03, 27 December 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) 02:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apparel Media Group

Apparel Media Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is a company printing T-shirts for advertisers. The articles about it in the references are entirely PR-driven, as is this WP article. DGG ( talk ) 01:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all reasons per nom DocumentError (talk) 03:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Promotional article. Coretheapple (talk) 19:50, 27 December 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) 02:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Campers Inn

Campers Inn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

promotional article for regional vendor of RV vehicles. all sources that aren't from the company are PR reports." One of the top 20 Winnebago dealers" is not notability .
It is our willingness to accept articles like this which have turned us into a fertile ground for paid authors for unimportant small businesses. DGG ( talk ) 01:19, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Based on what I'm seeing, I don't think this article passes
WP:GNG. --みんな空の下 (トーク) 01:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No, not notable, and yes, promotional and no, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Coretheapple (talk) 19:52, 27 December 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) 02:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chandran Nair (entrepreneur)

Chandran Nair (entrepreneur) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

author of one not very important book, which won an award from an online magazine of no particular authority. Everything else is PR DGG ( talk ) 01:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom DocumentError (talk) 01:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A long way to go before notabiity. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:20, 27 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Delete Non-notable PR. --Randykitty (talk) 11:22, 27 December 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) 02:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James W. Shue

James W. Shue (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)

Unelected political candidate who doesn't pass
notability that would get him past another notability guideline instead. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 01:05, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete defo delete - I previously wrote two entries on unelected candidates, however, in one case he was notable as a perennial candidate, and, in the other case he was notable for his record-setting margin of defeat. This guy doesn't fit those, or any other, bills, as per nom. DocumentError (talk) 01:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He's the father of two notables and he ran (and lost) a race for Congress, but he doesn't appear to meet notability standards on his own merits. It might be possible to flesh this out, but I haven't been able to either to find sources and / or to establish a credible claim of notability for him. Still, it's always sad to see a New Jersey article be deleted. Alansohn (talk) 01:39, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Parentage is the most interesting thing about him, and that's not enough. Coretheapple (talk) 19:54, 27 December 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) 02:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Krueckl

Jason Krueckl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable hockey player, fails the GNG as well as
WP:NHOCKEY criteria. Professional hockey played exclusively in the low minors in Germany and the US. Ravenswing 00:53, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk to me What did he do now? 01:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk to me What did he do now? 01:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Notable for playing five seasons at the highest level of professional inline hockey. Dolovis (talk) 01:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And, obviously you can show, via
reliable sources, that playing five seasons of inline hockey at the highest level actually IS notable? Reso lute 01:44, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
It's not even a matter of reliable sources. Inline hockey has no subordinate notability criteria, as part of NSPORTS, so no such assertion whatsoever can be supported, even for league MVPs or all-time leading scorers. Any importance deriving from inline hockey can only be supported through meeting the GNG. Ravenswing 08:08, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Inline hockey itself is barely notable; Jason Krueckl certainly is not. DocumentError (talk) 03:32, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication of notability/passes
WP:GNG. Reso lute 01:33, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Doesn't even remotely come close to being notable through passing GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 04:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG. NHOCKEY doesn't apply. It is for ice hockey, not inline hockey. Is ball hockey next? Hwy43 (talk) 09:18, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not sure what project inline hockey would fall under. Closest would be ice hockey, so I don't think playing in-line hockey for five years qualifies. Patken4 (talk) 04:12, 31 December 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) 02:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Le Coultre

Vincent Le Coultre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable hockey player, fails the GNG as well as
WP:NHOCKEY criteria, has played exclusively in youth leagues and the Swiss minor league. The article incorrectly asserts that he has played in the Swiss "A" league. Ravenswing 00:52, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The fact that factual accuracy wasn't even checked is greatly concerning. Reso lute 01:34, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG and factually fails NHOCKEY. Hwy43 (talk) 09:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NHOCKEY and GNG. Can be re-created if/when he ever does. Patken4 (talk) 04:13, 31 December 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) 02:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Annesley (ice hockey, born 1982)

Ryan Annesley (ice hockey, born 1982) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable hockey player, fails the GNG as well as
WP:NHOCKEY criteria. Played just 25 professional games, in the mid-minors. Won a scoring title playing for a Canadian collegiate team, but Canadian collegiate hockey is not considered notable enough to satisfy NHOCKEY's criteria. Ravenswing 00:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unremarkable career that appears to have failed to generate non-trivial coverage in
WP:NHOCKEY as well. Reso lute 01:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. Fails GNG and NHOCKEY. Hwy43 (talk) 09:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NHOCKEY and GNG. Can be re-created if/when he ever does. Patken4 (talk) 04:14, 31 December 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) 02:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Schichter

Matt Schichter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Promotional
WP:COI violation. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 00:43, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 00:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Soft Delete This could be a legitimate entry if it were about a paragraph long and had 3 solid references instead of being 2 pages long with 3 solid references plus 9 blogs and a MySpace page. The existence of the article, however, can't be maintained in suspended animation in hope of someone eventually coming along to properly write it, so I vote delete (a similar problem of a potentially decent entry that should be deleted anyway due to apparent abandonment by the PR flack who wrote it and disinterest by any other editors in contributing exists in respect of "Live Wire Radio" - here [[40]], which I'll get around to registering a Delete on in a moment) DocumentError (talk) 01:14, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional autobiography. Coretheapple (talk) 22:28, 27 December 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) 02:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Travis Bell (ice hockey)

Travis Bell (ice hockey) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable hockey player, fails the GNG as well as
WP:NHOCKEY criteria. Played just two undistinguished seasons in the low minors, non-notable collegiate career. Ravenswing 00:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I grant anyone blanket permission to register "delete" by proxy for me in every hockey player deletion request that is active today as of this timestamp. DocumentError (talk) 01:08, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – This hockey player meets criteria #3 of
POINTY AfD nominations. Dolovis (talk) 03:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Reply: The Central Hockey League is covered, instead, by criterion #4 of NHOCKEY, which explicitly states: "Achieved preeminent honors (all-time top ten career scorer, First Team All-Star, All-American) in a lower minor league such as the Central Hockey League or the United Hockey League, in a major junior league such as those of the Canadian Hockey League, or in a major collegiate hockey league." Dolovis' ongoing and blatant mischaracterizations of NHOCKEY's criteria have long since passed the point of bad faith. Ravenswing 08:12, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. nn player who had an unremarkable career that, according to Google News and Highbeam, never warranted any
reliable source coverage. Fails GNG. Reso lute 01:48, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Critera #4 specifically mentions the Central Hockey League falls under it. Enough with the misrepresenting of the notability criteria. Its almost at the point where you should be topic banned from hockey period. -DJSasso (talk) 04:25, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG and NHOCKEY per DJSasso's observation above. Hwy43 (talk) 09:12, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NHOCKEY and GNG. Can be re-created if/when he ever does. Patken4 (talk) 04:14, 31 December 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) 02:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lionel Mauron

Lionel Mauron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable hockey player, fails the GNG as well as
WP:NHOCKEY criteria. Played almost exclusively for youth teams, and has only a handful of games in the Swiss minor league. The article's inaccurate assertion notwithstanding, the subject has not yet played any games in the National League A. Ravenswing 00:36, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lack of fact checking is troubling. I assume that Dolovis can show via
reliable sources that cover the player in a non-trivial fashion that he actually has played in the NLA? Because even the sources he uses don't say that. Reso lute 17:05, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete fails GNG and NHOCKEY. Hwy43 (talk) 09:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NHOCKEY and GNG. Can be re-created if/when he ever does. Patken4 (talk) 04:15, 31 December 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. Thanks everyone for participating. :) Please
SarahStierch (talk) 03:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Brad Hammett

Brad Hammett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable hockey player, fails the GNG (no sources which don't violate WP:ROUTINE or WP:GEOSCOPE) and the
WP:NHOCKEY criteria. Played a handful of games, mostly in the low minors. Ravenswing 00:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets criteria #3 for playing in 100 plus games in “fully professional” leagues. Although the teams Hammett played for are now defunct, at the time he was playing they were AAA and AA level professional team, analogous to AHL and ECHL teams of today. Between 1963 and 1984, the teams of the NHL owned
CHL were the top minor league affiliates of NHL teams, and in the 1980s teams from the IHL also served as the top farm teams to either NHL or AHL franchises. In 1988 the ACHL merged with the AAHL to create the ECHL, thus by definition these leagues are analogous to the ECHL. Dolovis (talk) 04:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Reply: Most of these characterizations are simply untrue ... quite aside from the fact that hockey has never sanctioned "AAA" or "AA" baseball-style letter grades for leagues. While I agree that the CHL and IHL of the 1980s were on a par with the AHL, a player would need 100 games in those leagues to satisfy criterion #3; Hammett played 43. The ACHL and AAHL were low-level, ephemeral minor leagues. Ravenswing 08:23, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. As noted, there is no such thing as a "AAA" or "AA" league in hockey, so please don't waste our time trying to pass the ECHL's marketing pap off as a sign of notability. Beyond that, it is notable that Dolovis is trying to bank on an arbitrary SNG that only presumes notability rather than showing the existence of
reliable sources that cover the subject in a non-trivial manner. There is no indication that the presumption of notability is warranted in this case. Reso lute 01:41, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Could not find any sources anywhere that would allow this player to pass WP:GNG. Being as how he doesn't meet NHOCKEY either there is no reason to keep this non-notable player. -DJSasso (talk) 04:28, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NHOCKEY and GNG. Can be re-created if/when he ever does. Patken4 (talk) 04:16, 31 December 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--Ymblanter (talk) 09:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sunset Vista

Sunset Vista (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'm not seeing anything that satisfies
WP:BAND, just a couple of articles in tiny, tiny newspapers (i.e. circulation 6-7K).[41][42] Clarityfiend (talk) 00:19, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Maybe there's a score of magazine interviews, books, and documentaries on this band, but notability is disproved by demonstration of the fact that the primary contributors to the article didn't have enough interest in it to provide any references. Editor apathy proves non-notability of subject. DocumentError (talk) 01:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because coverage doesn't exist, which demonstrates lack of notability. --Michig (talk) 11:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find any
WP:RS to verify their notability. Even the band of the same name from Portsmouth does not have any sources. ww2censor (talk) 17:07, 27 December 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. Thanks everyone for participating. :) Please
SarahStierch (talk) 03:46, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Sawyer Hannay

Sawyer Hannay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable hockey player, fails the GNG (no sources which don't violate WP:ROUTINE or WP:GEOSCOPE) and the
WP:NHOCKEY criteria. Undistinguished junior career, only a handful of games in the mid-minors. Ravenswing 00:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets criteria #1 of
Austrian Hockey League, being Austria's top professional league. Dolovis (talk) 01:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - article not referenced by RS; editor apathy proves non-notability DocumentError (talk) 03:10, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As I understand it, a game in the top Austrian pro league is an auto-keep via the Special Notability low bar, per Dolovis. Editor Apathy, an argument of DocumentError, has nothing to do with anything here. Very much a borderline case. Carrite (talk) 03:34, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the creator of an article was so non-plused by the topic of that article that they couldn't be bothered to include RS references, then the article subject is not notable. "Notable" means "noteworthy" or worthy of mention. Sourcing, formatting, and inserting RS citations is an incumbent part of the WP experience. Therefore, articles lacking RS' are not fully formed articles, which is a demonstration by the editor that they do not feel the subject is noteworthy, no different than a spoken aside, trailing off in the middle of a sentence and abandoned by the speaker mid-thought. It is inexcusable to see the volume of articles on substantive topics that exist and lack properly inserted references. I restate my support for Delete. DocumentError (talk) 03:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, I refer you to
WP:NOTCLEANUP; a non-problematic stub on a worthy subject is kept indefinitely. (I have no opinion on this subject's notability, though.) הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 05:39, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Thank you. I refer you to
WP:PG; "policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense." (I do have an opinion on this subject's notability - not notable.) DocumentError (talk) 06:32, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Reply: Carrite, your understanding is incorrect. The Austrian pro league is in fact not a "top-level" league. The International Ice Hockey Federation ranks the Austrian league at no better than Europe's 11th most prominent professional league, and the league assessment that the Ice Hockey WikiProject has recently undertaken places it at no higher than criterion #4, which would require a player to have been a First Team All-Star or a top ten all-time career scorer. Dolovis' blatant bad faith concerning the text of
WP:NHOCKEY's criteria -- which I invite you to read yourself -- is a growing issue. Ravenswing 08:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment: I have just read
WP:NHOCKEY - but that discussion does need to take place first. PWilkinson (talk) 21:53, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete
WP:NHOCKEY, like all SNGs, only presume notability. They do not guarantee it. The only coverage on this player appears to be routine, and unless those advocating keep can find some significant sources, this article falls on the wrong side of that presumed notability. Reso lute 01:38, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete NHOCKEY only presumes notability. If you can't find some sources that proove he passes GNG (which I could not) then he should be deleted. -DJSasso (talk) 04:31, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG and NHOCKEY, which as I understand was never intended to be inclusive of top professional leagues in any given country (intended to be top pro leagues in the world). Hwy43 (talk) 09:06, 30 December 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.

^ SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. | LITIGATION RELEASE NO. 17624 / July 22, 2002 | Motel 6 SEC Litigation

^ Redtail Leasing v. Thrasher (In re Motel 6 Sec. Litig.), 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3909, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) P99454, RICO Bus. Disp. Guide P9255 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 1, 1997)

^ Ox v. Union Cent. Life Ins. Co., 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15997, 5 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 24, 13 Am. Disabilities Dec. 232 (S.D.N.Y. 1995)

[1] SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. | LITIGATION RELEASE NO. 17624 / July 22, 2002 | Motel 6 SEC Litigation

[2] Redtail Leasing v. Thrasher (In re Motel 6 Sec. Litig.), 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3909, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) P99454, RICO Bus. Disp. Guide P9255 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 1, 1997)

[3] Ox v. Union Cent. Life Ins. Co., 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15997, 5 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 24, 13 Am. Disabilities Dec. 232 (S.D.N.Y. 1995)

[1]

[2]

[3]