Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 January 26

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Snow Keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolas Slonimsky

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

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

Nominated via OTRS by the subject's daughter:- "The entry fails to explain to the reader why Nicolas Slonimsky is important and worth finding out about. It skips from 1927 to 1958 and then circles back to mention a few books written in between without providing titles or publication dates. It devotes an entire paragraph to describing local radio shows on which he was a guest, identifying their hosts by name, and mentions among his "notable" students someone who evidently attended a class he taught at UCLA. The material, such as it is, is taken from a glance at his autobiography and from his obituary in the NYTimes, as well as what can only be personal experiences or acquaintances of the writer."  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 18:57, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep: The OTRS nomination is indeed a valid reason for a major copyedit/rewrite, but the subject is far too notable for deletion. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:02, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Slonimsky is obviously worthy of an article here and, really, there's nothing wrong with the existing article that some editing can't fix.--Arxiloxos (talk) 19:31, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Incomplete and
  WP:POINT are not strong reasons for deletion when the subject has a legitimate assertion to notability with reliable sources. Mkdw^talk 19:58, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep While the article as it stands is poorly referenced, the subject is clearly notable which is the determining factor here. AfD is not for article improvement, necessary as it is. (Would it be better to refer the note on the article's inadequacy to a Project, such as
  WP:CM, and seek a clean-up?) AllyD (talk) 19:59, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Definitely keep- a very notable, significant figure in 20th cdntury music. Of course the article needs improving but deletion should be out of the question.--Smerus (talk) 20:15, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment - it looks from the article like the complainant recently carried out some heavy editing in non-WP style which was reverted (not unreasonably) by another editor - but I don't think deletion should be allowed as an apporpriate revenge!--Smerus (talk) 20:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable figure, no reason to delete as pointed about by other users.
  Talkback) 23:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per Smerus, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 29 January 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. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 05:54, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Taryn Khanam

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

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

Completing a malformed AfD on behalf of new user Applepie2013 who is apparently the subject of the article and has made a request for the page about herself to be deleted. See [1] --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:14, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as not especially notable, and in case of a tie, the subject wins IMO. Collect (talk) 18:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- can't really give much weight to subject's wishes in the absence of an OTRS request -- but in reality notability here is clearly lacking and it ought to be deleted regardless of the subject's ostensible wishes. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:54, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Ticket:2013012610000175 verifies the subject's wishes. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per subject's wishes and as she is a person who is relatively unknown, per
  WP:BLPDELETE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC) NB I made the nomination on behalf of the subject but did not make an argument myself.[reply
  ]
• Delete — Per Nomo. I don't think this subject passes
  a plain reading of notability requirements. I appreciate her wishes, but I think that's additive in this case. JFHJr (㊟) 02:52, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Articles on theories have been on AFD before, but then it has often been about fringe theories that gain attention in popular media but not in academia. This one is different, because the cited sources are in journals like Physical Review D, and the theory cannot be described in any way as "fringe" when it gets published in a highly respected peer reviewed journal of that nature. However, only one of the articles cited in the page is from an another author than Mr. Jones, and having looked at that article, it does not actually contain the phrase "Classical Schrödinger equation". Apart from Jones' comments, there have been no calls for outright keeping of the article. A proposed alternative was merging with the article on Jones, but following the clear consensus to delete that article (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingsley Jones (Australian physicist and investor)), that possibility is moot. The article that is entitled "The classical Schrödinger equation" is according to the arxiv page [2] recently submitted to Arxiv and the PDF says that it is a pre-print that is not peer-reviewed.

While many of the delete votes here were superficial in that they only assert a lack of notability, the issues of lack of independent sourcing (in this context meaning evidence of widespread usage or commentary by other academics) and wider interest in the discoveries do remain. The concerns in the nomination statement and by Mark viking are sufficiently well-argued, and since the consensus here is for deletion, I am closing with that result. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Classical Schrödinger equation

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

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

Non-notable theory - it's got about 15 citations in Google Scholar, which effectively means that Jones's work sank without trace in the physics world. Possibly also CoI issues, as the editor who created the article is also one of the few contributors to Kingsley Jones (Australian physicist and investor)‎ (which I've also nominated for deletion). Djr32 (talk) 18:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Does not have a chance to deserve an article. Redirect to Kingsley Jones in the unlikely event that it will be kept; otherwise delete. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:01, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to
  Schrödinger–Newton equations article. This POV pushing, COI tainted article content is still verifiable, however, so the best approach would be to merge a subset (say, the references and a brief description) to the Kingsley Jones article. I would recommend against a redirect because the article content is not equivalent to, or even necessarily representative of, the topic. Mark viking (talk) 21:08, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Insufficiently notable.-Dilaton (talk) 21:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

-- If the theory is valid, regardless of your opinion of how popular (non-notable) it is, why should it be deleted? I see no reason to remove a valid posting, as this sort of goes against the whole idea of Wikipedia? Why should you censor something true? Jake Carter -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.200.95.49 (talk) 01:45, 28 January 2013 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Classical_Schr%C3%B6dinger_equation&action=edit(UTC) — 14.200.95.49 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ---

There are indeed several research strands out there that use the term Classical or Generalized Schroedinger equation. Another notable effort in this area is de la Pena's work approaching this using Markov chains.(http://rmf.smf.mx/pdf/rmf/16/4/16_4_221.pdf). A comprehensive article on all these different efforts would be a very useful resource. Quaxquax (talk) 05:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)— Quaxquax (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Delete. Insufficient notability as yet per nom. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. a13ean (talk) 22:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I may be permitted to comment on my own equation (this is Kingsley Jones), please note the following facts: 1) prior to my discovery, there was no known wave-equation producing the limit form of the

  the Ehrenfest Theorem is notable, therefore the existence of a corresponding wave-equation is notable

2) the geometrical argument based on group theory established the uniqueness of this equation

  given that the Ehrenfest Theorem is notable and this equation is unique - the two clearly go together

3) the geometrical construction employed establishes that there is only ONE such equation, and by extension only TWO possible representations of classical point mechanics: A) the original due to Hamilton; B) the second (ray representation) due to Jones 4) the entire system rests within the generalized dynamics of Weinberg. This is notable since Weinberg has a Nobel Prize and proposed his system in the paper "Testing quantum mechanics" as a way of examining theories beyond linear quantum mechanics. 5) the fact that a theory proposed as being more general than quantum mechanics (by a Nobel Laureate) actually contains a unique and exact copy of an existing theory called classical mechanics is (I would submit) notable 6) the cited exclusion of that as a "fundamental theory" due to Jones established that this unique, second representation of classical point mechanics, was inadmissible as fundamental physics is notable.

Let us make a tally. Hamilton is notable, and this is a second representation of his original point mechanics. Weinberg is notable and this shows that his generalized dynamics contains both QM and CM. Ehrenfest is notable and this is the first and ONLY POSSIBLE wave equation which reproduces the classical limit. The exclusion of the said equation due to Jones is also notable, since it establishes that this equation cannot have fundamental content and that, therefore, point mechanics is essentially approximate.

It is on the basis of sound and factual demonstration that Science is built.

By all means continue to debate this matter. The only reason I added this Wiki is that I found many queries on the web asking "What is the connection between Ehrenfest (in limit) form and the Schroedinger equation." This surprised me since I did this 20 years ago.

Encyclopedias are not merely for well-known facts or popular fixations. This is a factual result which links two well-respected noteworthy theories in a novel way. That is why I added it now. By all means delete it and everybody can wait a hundred years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.146.6.240 (talk) 02:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the above, you can always merge the above into [Ehrenfest] (logical) or footnote [Hamilton]. The point of an Encyclopedia is to educate. All the stuff about citations is just so much window dressing. People who talk about citations are clueless about how real Science is done. TIP: If you want to be cited a lot just write a wrong paper. When you do something like this, it is not cited much. What! ...you say? When I told Weinberg back in 1992 that his theory contained an exact copy of classical point mechanics he just said one word only: "Oh!". Think about it. You go to great pains with the most sensitive exclusion of non-linearity in QM ever (1 part in 10^-13) and some arrogant young pup from Australian walks in to your office and says: "Hey, Mr Nobel Laureate, the theory you just excluded empirically contains an exact copy of classical mechanics." What would you do? It is a damn shame we did not have Niels Bohr in the room at the time or we could have had a right old laugh at his expense. Wiki needs good content. You are the Wikipedians, work out how to write something that tells an accurate story. So far, all I see is the delete frog: delete delete. Get real about real results and stop hiding behind protocol. Wiki should educate. Facts are the basis of that (Kingsley Jones) [User talk:Labbit|talk] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.234.84 (talk) 08:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC) — 121.209.234.84 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Comment Not sure how much Kingsley's spirited defense of the notability of his work will sway hearts and minds here, but I just wanted to stress that this is about the limit form of the
  Feynman's path integral approach to QM this shouldn't be too surprising, but I certainly haven't seen this presented in that way anywhere else. Quaxquax (talk) 05:04, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus has long held that the standard of notability for academics is higher than getting articles published in journals, including highly respected journals such as those in thePhysical Review. Since much of the work of a professor involves writing articles that get published, setting the standard lower would entail the inclusion of most if not all university professors. Quaxquax has expressed reservations about the current notability guideline setting the standard too high, but for the time being that is the standard we have, and the consensus here is consistent with that guideline. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kingsley Jones (Australian physicist and investor)

Kingsley Jones (Australian physicist and investor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Apparent autobiography, subject doesn't appear to be pass the notability criterion (e.g. Wikipedia:Notability (academics)).) Djr32 (talk) 17:57, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Subject has made original discoveries which are the subject of Wiki articles: Classical_Schrödinger_equation Perhaps this article lacks a correct emphasis on the reasons for notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Labbit (talk • contribs) 06:52, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So an obscure Rugby player deserves an entry (

Kingsley Jones (Welsh rugby union flanker)

) but a published scientist does not? Is this an encyclopedia or high school?

Quaxquax (talk) 05:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)— Quaxquax (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 05:28, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Director of a national team doesn't sound particularly obscure to me, for that matter. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. GS cites are 20, 15, 1, 11... Sorry, not enough for
  WP:Prof#C1 yet. Too early. Maybe later. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC).[reply
  ]

A better source of GS cites is here[3]. h-index of 11 is still not quite enough. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete fails WP:PROF and as per Xxanthippe. insufficient level of citations. LibStar (talk) 02:46, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The spa creator of the article would have been wise to have researched Wikipedia's standards before starting. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. The citation record is not enough to convince me of a pass of
  WP:PROF#C1 and what else is there? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Fails
  WP:GNG. StAnselm (talk) 06:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment. Someone who did a PhD and a postdoc or two, and published a few papers in (pretty reasonable) journals isn't a "high flying academic" or an Ayn Rand superman, there are tens of thousands of such people. I have no idea if he's a talking head on CNBC Asia, though nobody seems to have seen fit to mention it in the article up to now. Djr32 (talk) 22:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not pass
  WP:PROF and no sufficient evidence of other notability. a13ean (talk) 23:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment. Djr32 you get your literature confused, Superman is way to realistic a character to ever have been written by Ayn Rand. I originally included the CNBC links when I started the article, it was later edited by somebody else, and these references apparently removed. I already learned the hard way that my own threshold for notability does not meet up with Wikipedia policy. Which is too bad really as Wikipedia is a great resource if you want to orient yourself about various out of the mainstream research. So please riddle me this: Why are the entries on Burkhard Heim [4] and Mendel Sachs [5]? I obviously appreciate them, just fail to see how they are much more notable? Anyhow, just to document that Kingsley is a talking head on CNBC here's a link [http=http://search.cnbc.com/main.do?target=all&categories=exclude&keywords=kingsley%20Jones].

Quaxquax (talk) 15:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Just realized that I committed another
  WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS in my previous comment, but would still be interested to learn the nature of the difference in merits, would be instructive to know. Quaxquax (talk) 18:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • You picked two kind of marginal cases, so it's not clear what insight about the threshold for notability is to be gained by assuming that they're different from this one. In the case of Sachs, I don't understand why his AfD was closed as keep (rather than no consensus) since there were a significant contingent of people on the AfD who thought it should be deleted. In the case of Heim, I don't think we've explicitly discussed his own notability, but there have been three contentious AfDs on Heim theory (see the talk page for links), so again I don't think there is a clear consensus that he's notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • David, thank you for elaborating on this. Makes me think I may want to mirror the entries on Sachs and Heim just in case. As aptly demonstrated in this talk, I don't really understand the wikipedia AfD issues: So I am wondering, for curiosity's sake: Does the number of hits that an article receives factor into the discussion? Seems to me that traffic would be a fairly good criteria of how notable a subject is? Quaxquax (talk) 03:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It depends on what you mean by number of hits. The hit count from a regular Google search? Usually not. But we definitely look at the citation counts from Google scholar searches. In a high-citation field like theoretical physics, multiple papers with multiple-hundred citations each would be good; the numbers in Jones' scholar profile aren't to that point yet, though. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:53, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Gscholar h-index of 11 is unremarkable for quantum physics. Ray^Talk 17:20, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 05:54, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A. Rees Clark

A. Rees Clark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

• Delete Article lacks
  references about the subject or any demonstration of his notability. Nor have I located any. AllyD (talk) 23:55, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, per AllyD. Nothing here suggests sufficient notability. Bucketsofg 20:14, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No evidence of passing either
  WP:GNG exists in the article, nor could I find any searching Google scholar, Google news archive, and Highbeam. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:44, 29 January 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. Wait, what was I thinking? I sumitted this and immediately realized that it should be speedied. I hope it's not too far out of process to change my mind. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:38, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MC Flamme

MC Flamme (edit | 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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 21:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Manish Sharma (businessman)

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 spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp |username}}.

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

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

Most of the references show information on

• Delete - fails
  WP:BIO, no significant coverage in reliable sources. ukexpat (talk) 15:34, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• delete makes no claim to importance, he has a standard business role and no coverage that there is anything unusual about it or him. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - minor businessman, not a CEO or anything notable. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:07, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The subject is simly not notable. Roger (talk) 16:50, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for lack of significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:07, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. just not notable. Chipper2Lews (talk) 17:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:56, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:56, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete appears to fail under Competent Professional but otherwise not notable.
  talk) 14:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Here is the link of the same: http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-03-06/news/31127441_1_panasonic-india-daizo-ito-durables-market

His name has appeared in other major newspapers and magazines in India. Here are the links:

• http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-03-06/news/31127441_1_panasonic-india-daizo-ito-durables-market
• http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/features/brandline/article3707404.ece
• http://www.4psbusinessandmarketing.com/07102010/storyd.asp?sid=4042&pageno=1
• http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/industry-and-economy/marketing/article3516096.ece?homepage=true&ref=wl_home

Apart from these, he has received various awards, one of the most recent one being, the National Conservation Energy Awards 2012 held in December on behalf of Panasonic.

Also, the page isn't an Orphan page now as it was earlier as it is linked to three different articles.

Therefore, Manish Sharma by no means necessary can be categorized as a Non-notable Corporate Bureaucrat. Also, as you can see there are some newspapers and publications that are included here which are only going to increase with time. I request you to please help me correct this issue and don't get this article deleted. Please respond. Urgent. Gadgetsgigs (talk) 06:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Seven editors have responded......saying they believe he is not notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

was just going through the article. it seems perfectly fit for Wikipedia to me. i dont think so it has any such issue because of which it should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.21.190.97 (talk) 04:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC) — 125.21.190.97 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Delete Fails
  WP:BIO. Sub-division head within a company. Most of the references focus on Panasonic's business strategy, with Sharma briefly mentioned. Funny ^Pika! 02:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Interesting sources are;
  • Hindustan Times, April 29, 2011. Quotes Sharma extensively, but is mostly about Panasonic in India, not him personally. "Panasonic India currently imports its home appliances from various locations around the globe. It is in the process of setting up a manufacturing plant at Jhajjar in Haryana, for which its parent company has set aside Rs 1,000 crore. The company aims to double its headcount to 22,000 employees for its Indian operations by the end of the current financial year." Certainly interesting when some western firms are "notable" with maybe a few dozen or a few hundred employees. Should we discriminate for being Indian when deciding notability? Twenty-two thousand employees?
  • Hindustan Times, December 14, 2010. Quotes Sharma again, briefly, and also has a longer quote, "Panasonic Corp currently imports its home appliances from different locations around the globe in India. It is now looking at investing Rs 1,000 crore in a new consumer appliance manufacturing plant at Jhajjar in Haryana by 2012. The facility, which will manufacture air conditioners and washing machines will later be looked at as an export hub."
  • Also a separate article quoting Sharma in the same day's paper, "Global consumer electronics majors Panasonic and Toshiba, which were present in India even before the arrival of the Korean giants, are once again waking up to Indian market. The firms are now looking at flooding the market with their India-focused products, besides setting up local manufacturing facilities in the country."
  • Sharma talking at length about a "techno park" with investment of Rs 1,000 crore, covering 72 acres, something to do with air conditioning. Tehelka, December 15, 2010. Author was "Nishi Rath", article title was " Reliance arm to develop the project with Panasonic investing Rs 1,000 crore".

I think there's some substance underneath all this, and if we're deleting this article just because the person happens to hold a post in India, we will look pretty stupid a few years down the line. --

The thing is, the only substance I can see is Sharma being a spokesperson for Panasonic. The fact that he holds a post in India is irrelevant. If he were CEO of some other Fortune 500 company in India there would be reason for him to have an article, but here he's just the Managing Director of the Indian division of a Fortune 500 company. Funny ^Pika! 04:04, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That also seems to be in pretty bad faith to say we are asking for deletion due to him being Indian.

talk) 04:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

What searches for sources did you carry out before your one-line !vote, "Hell in a Bucket"? What did you find? --

talk) 04:32, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

That's a fairly interesting response to a questino on why you are assuming bad faith.

talk) 04:38, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

If we're to assume bad faith as you suggest, then the assumption from your responses thus far is that you did no searches at all. If that's the case, shouldn't your !vote just be stricken as wilfully ill-informed? --

talk) 05:57, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Are you really going to continue showing bad faith? I put in my rationale why I thought it should be deleted. My comment doesn't say just per nom, it was my reason for deletion. i'm sorry that it doesn't pass your muster of what a vote should include or how long it should include but I am following wiki policy.

talk) 06:00, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Excuse me? You're the one that began throwing around the accusations of bad faith, and continue to do so - together with laughable bullshit spammed onto my talk page. You can indeed come out with any old nonsense you like as "my reason for deletion", but unless it addresses the notability of the subject one way or the other, it might as well just be stricken - it's worthless. Have you looked to see what coverage of this person exists in independent reliable sources? If so, how did you do so? What did you find? --

talk) 06:14, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

• talk) 06:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - I'm satisfied that sources showing in the piece are sufficient for the subject to clear GNG. The second line of the lead is pure puffery and needs to be stricken, but since it has footnote attached I haven't touched it myself during this AfD. Carrite (talk) 06:55, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted

to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 17:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• What's not clear about the consensus above? Seems like a pretty clear delete to me.--ukexpat (talk) 20:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked him to explain the relist on his talkpage, here. GregJackP Boomer! 21:08, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was concerned that given Demiurge's late comment on sourcing and notability and Carrite's keep, there was new information that could affect the outcome and wanted to relist for full consideration. MBisanz ^talk 21:20, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete gainfully employed, but that's about it. Not a CEO or industry leader, unlikely to become an enduring part of history even within the industry. Sourcing focuses on the company (which of course is notable), not him personally. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:48, 26 January 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 List of The Inbetweeners episodes. MBisanz ^talk 21:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Will's Dilemma

Will's Dilemma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Dilemma Stats

)

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

RNo encylopedic content and unlikely to ever have any Indiasummer95 (talk) 15:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (
  t • c »  17:08, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment Exactly what page is this referring to? I've made several spelling changes and still can't find it... Lukeno94 (talk) 17:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, found it.

Will's Dilemma - please change the links and tag it appropriately. Lukeno94 (talk) 17:30, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment There are several more sources for an article: there are at least 2 unofficial Inbetweeners books[6][7] and reviews of this episode online[8][9], as well as official books[10][11]. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of The Inbetweeners episodes. Article is plot-only (aside from one line of 'trivia'). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:28, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of The Inbetweeners episodes. MBisanz ^talk 21:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Trip to Warwick

The Trip to Warwick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats

)

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

unlikely to ever expand, non-encyclopedic at the moment Indiasummer95 (talk) 15:32, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (
  t • c »  17:08, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment It would be quite easy to expand thanks to online sources[12][13] and books.[14][15] Whether anyone wants to expand it is another matter. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of The Inbetweeners episodes. Article is plot-only (aside from five words of 'trivia'). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:28, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of The Inbetweeners episodes. MBisanz ^talk 21:54, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Fashion Show (The Inbetweeners)

The Fashion Show (The Inbetweeners) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats

)

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

No encylopedic content whatsoever and unlikely to ever have any. Indiasummer95 (talk) 15:37, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (
  t • c »  17:07, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of The Inbetweeners episodes. Article is plot-only (aside from one line of 'trivia'). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:27, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

Preston Toroidal Scale

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

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

• Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes).
• Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed
• Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline. Semitransgenic _talk. 16:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (
  t • c »  17:05, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete It would be easier to understand if the authors explained their notation and terms better, but I'm quite certain there's no meaningful mathematics here, just some half-baked numerology. The last sentence itself essentially proves that no one has seriously studied this or it wouldn't have been a conjecture for very long. Googling turns up a few but none that constitute reliable analysis in secondary sources. Kilopi (talk) 23:54, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• delete Searching books makes the few web hits disappear, and the web hits are questionable at best, serving mostly to confirm that this is some sort of fringey nonsense. Mangoe (talk) 02:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• The fact that the article was created less than 24 hours after the supposed "discovery" mentioned in the article is a fairly good indicator by itself that this is someone making stuff up off the top of xyr head, and coming to Wikipedia to write about it in contravention of our Wikipedia:No original research policy. Some quick use of Google Web finds this where the "discoverer" indicates that that is pretty much what xe did. Uncle G (talk) 21:59, 27 January 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.

Rob Sawicki

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Notodden FK. MBisanz ^talk 21:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Kvalheim

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

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

Article deleted per

Note: This discussion has been included in

talk) 15:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails
  WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:16, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect to
  WP:NFOOTY or received enough in depth coverage to meet GNG. Mkdw^talk 20:05, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]