Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 April 14

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was keep. This does not mean the article should not be cleaned up. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:46, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Motion-Twin

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

)

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

Originally tagged this for speedy deletion under

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 23:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 23:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment It doesn't appear to be linked yet when I visited the enwiki page, but Google popped up with an article on frwiki: [1]. There appears to be 3-4 french language sources there that aren't self-published, may help in resolving AFD. -- ferret (talk) 01:54, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Mild keep - Of the French article's sources, the only one that jumps out at me as a probable RS is Libération, but there seems to be some other RS coverage in English (like here at gameindustry.biz, and here at mcvuk, and some scholarly coverage at Google Scholar. Motion-Twin seems to be a pretty big player in the French video game scene so we should probably be focusing on French sources like jeuxvideo.com, etc. -Thibbs (talk) 05:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -
  Mush (computer game). I moved it. That article has fairly substantial coverage, but some is in French. I think there is more coverage to be found under "Twinoid", the name of the company's big social-network game. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 13:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Weak keep Subject is probably notable. However the article is ridiculously over-detailed and promotional. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. There is just way too much in this for an article with no sources. It needs to be cut down to a stub until RS sources are added. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:41, 15 April 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.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is an important company. I see no problems with the article, but if there are, they can be fixed by editing. I support permanent semi-protection, which could be applied by the closing admin. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep - Absolutely massive company, one of the largest telecommunications companies in one of the largest cell phone markets on Earth. Hundreds of possible sources, both in Indonesian and in English. That this article appears to have been the target of concerted efforts to paint them as part of MNC Media Group (see the page history), and that the company can't edit the page to its liking because they don't know how to reference (we've had the same issues with the Indonesian version of the article) doesn't mean they can just say "Fine, we're taking our toys away". The article may need permanent semi-protection, but it is quite valid. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:12, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's major company with a significant market share in mobile telephony and internet services, as well as substantial assets. Davidelit (Talk) 03:47, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep The subject meets almost every criteria for
  WP:SNOW. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:58, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:59, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Lisch

Michael Lisch (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

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 21:17, 14 April 2014

• 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) 22:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - Now that he has made his debut, the article meets
  WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:36, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails
  WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 11:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep - SOurce below indicates player now passes NFOOTY. Needs work to improve to GNG. Fenix down (talk) 07:50, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fails
  WP:NFOOTBALL. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 20:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep, now passes
  WP:NFOOTBALL. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 11:46, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete per the preceding comments. Subject fails
  WP:NFOOTY and no evidence of other notability seems to exist. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:07, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep per new information indicating subject passes
  WP:N.-Ad Orientem (talk) 15:04, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Nomination withdrawn - He's in the starting 11 for
  WP:NFOOTBALL. So this article should be kept. – Michael (talk
  ) 20:32, 19 April 2014

@Mikemor92: can you provide a source for the appearance, I don't see one in the article. Happy to change my vote if this can be done. Fenix down (talk) 11:47, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Fenix down: here. – Michael (talk) 01:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - why bother nominating articles for deletion that are with first team, and very likely to start soon. Even if he had been deleted, would likely recreate soon.
  WP:NORUSH and we can afford to wait a few weeks, and see if the article is indeed a keeper. Nfitz (talk) 23:33, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:48, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sherard Reddick

Sherard Reddick (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 GNG and NHOOPS. The leagues he's played in do not qualify for automatic inclusion, nor are there enough independent sources written about him online. Jrcla2 (talk) 20:36, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 21:36, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The modern ABA is several steps below leagues that carry notability. Rikster2 (talk) 23:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete. This is one unimportant player on one unimportant team in an obscure sports league. Subject is far past non-notable. The fact that someone even decided to make an article about him brings up thoughts of "
  does the creator know this guy?" Mr. Guye (talk) 19:44, 21 April 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 Hamilton Health Sciences. Tawker (talk) 06:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hamilton Health Sciences Foundation

Hamilton Health Sciences Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats

)

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

no evidence of notability, no references tagged for three years Theroadislong (talk) 19:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 20:07, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 20:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Hamilton Health Sciences and edit for NPOV.--v/r - TP 20:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect per TP. No evidence of any independent notability. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Hamilton Health Sciences--Ciofeca (talk) 13:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Hamilton Health Sciences. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:03, 22 April 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. Tawker (talk) 06:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So-lo Discount Stores

So-lo Discount Stores (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)

Only finds are directories and listings fails

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 20:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: When an article is offering only a business listing and the telephone directory as links, it is falling short, probably to a CSD A7 degree. Some coverage of firms of the same name in the USA can be found, but not in depth and they do not appear to be the same firm anyway. No
  notability. AllyD (talk) 06:05, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as non notable store. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 21:25, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.
  talk) 16:17, 19 April 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. Tawker (talk) 06:11, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Four Lanterns

Four Lanterns (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)

Local non-notable only directory listings and ads turn-up. Fails

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 20:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I can't find much about the chain and I don't think this would be considered reliable. Book sources not much better unless we want to use this bit to note the servers are "scumbags"? Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep I found some sources Eyewitness Travel Family Guide London, and [2]. Then I also found some non RS that doesn't hurt notability Standard UK. Restaurant appears to have been established in 1970 and is an established chain. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 14:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Valoem, the restaurant you are talking about is a Greek restaurant in London. See their website. The website says it is "named after a small bridge in the town of Limassol, Cyprus." Other than the name, I don't think that restaurant has anything to do with chain of 7 or fast food restaurants in northwest Ireland known as Four Lanterns, 4 Lights, and Four Lanterns Subs. As best I can tell the Irish restaurants are named for the four Green Lanterns of Earth in comic book lore. Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought the Greek restaurant was the one in question. Removed my vote. Thanks for the clarification! Valoem ^{talk contrib} 16:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.
  talk) 16:17, 19 April 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. Tawker (talk) 06:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Jones (businessman)

Joshua Jones (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)

I don't see how this person passes the GNG. The one citation from Forbes is nothing but a brief mention that could support an article on Sarrell Dental, but says nothing really about our subject. Other coverage is local (Crimson White is the campus newspaper), and Google didn't deliver anything useful. Drmies (talk) 19:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I didn't find much useful information after some research to validate this person qualifies for an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XjiGsawyouthx (talk • contribs) 19:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 20:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 20:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I've performed some cleanup and reformattting to improve this article but agree that there is not sufficient in-depth coverage for subject to cross the notability threshold. Two of the three listed bibliography items are essentially self-published. - Dravecky (talk) 18:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Perhaps some of this could be merged to Emercy (which is itself woefully under-referenced and out of date) then convert this to a redirect. - Dravecky (talk) 18:31, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was keep. from discussion it appears it can meet notability, AfD is not cleanup, with that being said, article should be cleaned up and sourcing improved wherever possible. Tawker (talk) 06:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

YMCA Camp Wanakita

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

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

No evidence of notability. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: There are 200,000 people who have benefited from the camp's programs and it is frequently mentioned in the news publications of the surrounding cities. The article has 15 citations and evidence for some of the uncited statements can be inferred from the 7 public domain images that I included.

There are 32 YMCA Summer Camps with Wikipedia articles and the highest quality ones are Camp Ralph S. Mason, YMCA Camp Wanakita and YMCA Camp Fitch on Lake Erie. Deleting articles in the top three would set the precedent that summer camps cannot be covered on Wikipedia at all. The last thing this site needs is further indication that its user base has no interest in outdoor activities. Connor Behan (talk) 19:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment You appear to have been on Wikipedia for a while, so you must know that 200,000 people benefiting from something is not a criteria for inclusion per
  WP:RS. freshacconci talk to me 00:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I counted 9 sources directly affiliated with the camp. These were for things that had a fairly low burden of proof like the length of the swimming pool. Nevertheless, I added 4 secondary sources to the article today. I also found sources connecting Wanakita to Camp Rock and Jeremy Fisher, so I might add those later. Normally I am a deletionist, but objective camp information in the form of images and prose is not pointless trivia. It's something that sets a good example for all the crappy point-form articles out there. Connor Behan (talk) 07:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 20:14, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 20:14, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Notable. --doncram 08:34, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's a little long and overly detailed. It also has a non-neutral tone to it and I have tagged it accordingly. But none of that is fatal. The subject clearly meets
  WP:GNG. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Thanks. I have made a post on the talk page about this. Connor Behan (talk) 09:46, 17 April 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) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Sinclair Butt

Charles Sinclair Butt (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 fails

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 20:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 20:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No indication of notability in any of the sources given, and from the sounds of his biography, it seems unlikely that any other sources exist that would demonstrate notability. Seeing as the article's creator is currently blocked, I'm going to assume that they were only interested in Butt for his surname. -IagoQnsi (talk) 22:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. An entry in the Australian Dictionary of Biography is strong evidence of notability. Frickeg (talk) 02:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Frickeg. If kept, a hatnote should be added to a different Charles Butt. Clarityfiend (talk) 16:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Even after reading the article referenced by Frickeg I am not really sold on the subject's notability. But in cases where it's a close call, I tend to lean on the keep side of things. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:42, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was Keep. (WP:Non-admin closure). §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:32, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

V. T. Rajshekar

V. T. Rajshekar (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)

Relatively non-notable journalist. The Journal he founded may be notable , but it does not translate into notability for the editor or founder of the journal. References are poor and strong enough to back the article. Uncletomwood (talk) 17:07, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 20:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 20:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The references need improvement, but he appears to be notable. I added his receipt of the London Institute of South Asia (LISA) Book of the Year Award for 2005. Coverage on him is not recent, so you really can't expect to find it in electronic sources. His book The Black Untouchables of India has been through multiple editions and is widely cited. In fact, looking at his citation history in Google scholar can give one a better understanding of his importance. --Bejnar (talk) 21:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I'll admit borderline, but I think there's enough sources to pass
  WP:GNG in this case. Granted many of the sources are not third party, but I believe that a few are (unless I'm incorrect) and that's enough to establish notability.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:34, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per
  WP:NAUTHOR with major award noted above. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was keep. There is a consensus that the reliable sources currently present in the article are sufficient to establish the notability of this camp. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:05, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Center Day Camp

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

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

No evidence of notability. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 20:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 20:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. 17:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC) IZAK (talk) 17:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Meets GNG -- even with what is already reflected in the article, which includes full articles devoted to the camp, which was established 65 years ago. --Epeefleche (talk) 21:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, per Epeefleche. --doncram 08:35, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because it has enough
  WP:RS in the article. IZAK (talk) 17:51, 18 April 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. Tawker (talk) 06:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sense Technology

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

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

Fails

The Hi Sense technology is not actually a remote influence technique but it seems similar to it. This technology is widely used everywhere but didn't have a name. This name was given recently and thats why there are not much published sources are available ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arisepeter (talk • contribs) 16:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not published sources available as the creator admits.

Anupmehra -Let's talk! 16:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete. Even assuming good faith that this is not simply a hoax, it would certainly be considered a fringe topic, and subject to the sourcing and due weight expectations of
  WP:FRINGE. In any case, nothing like a reliable source appears to exist. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unable to locate any
  WP:NFRINGE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete I'd say not only fringe, but and advert as well based on phrases like "The company". Dolescum (talk) 00:57, 16 April 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.

Little Guilin (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)

Should be merged with

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 20:20, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep per
  Speedy Keep - Applicability section 1 Nom has made no argument for deletion. This is not a merge forum. Suggest tagging the article for proposed merger. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:30, 15 April 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.

Georges Ziade

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

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

The article appears to be a hoax as there is no mention of this person on Al-Shaab's website or in any online sources. Even if this footballer were to exist, there is no evidence of notability or any sign that it could satisfy the GNG. Jogurney (talk) 13:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Jogurney (talk) 14:07, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as hoax. GiantSnowman 18:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: either a hoax or completely non-notable per
  WP:ATHLETE. Nothing about him online in English or Arabic. Ruby Murray 06:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:46, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Gray (actor)

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

)

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

No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Still no sources apart from IMDb, despite being tagged for sources and for notability for two months. The first page of hits from a Google search for "Andrew Gray" "Troy Burrows" consisted of YouTube, IMDb, wikia, several tumblr pages, a site describing itself as "an unofficial fansite", the Wikipedia article, and two Facebook pages. The next couple of pages contained nothing better: no sign of coverage in reliable independent sources. (A PROD was removed by an IP editor, without any explanation.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 20:22, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 20:22, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per lack of
  WP:RS LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No clear evidence of notability per
  WP:NACTOR and no RS sources. Am open to reconsideration if RS sources are found establishing notability. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Krishna Pandey

Krishna Pandey (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)

Yes, he has achieved one record which is recorded by the Guinness World Records. But this does not seem sufficiently notable for an encyclopedia entry. The subject's blog suggests that his purpose in breaking the record was solely to obtain publicity for Buddha, Mt Everest and Nepal (see http://reversespeller.com/Home/About, linked as a source for his place of birth). Does Wikipedia need an article for every record-holder recognised by Guinness? Article was earlier PRODded as BLPPROD, but does have the one RS of Guinness World Records. PamD 12:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable enough.
  (talk) 13:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 20:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Recognition by Guinness World Records is probably enough to establish notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:BLP1E. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as non notable. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 21:13, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Holding a Guiness record is not really a good claim to notability at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:10, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was merge to Kantar Group. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:25, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MySurvey

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 listed sources establish that the company exist; but all are trivial mentions. While the company is certainly associated with several notable companies, notability is not inherited and this company itself does not meet the threshold of notability at this time. - Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:36, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This company is notable enough to stay in wiki page. As "The Conference Board’s Consumer Confidence Index", the most widely accepted index among the United States media, like USA TODAY- Consumer confidence hits highest level since Jan. 2008, businesspeople, and many consumers, is conducted by this company, reference: Reuters, foxbusiness. - User:Lsrpopwiki (Lsrpopwiki • contribs) - 05:07, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No one is questioning that

verifiability that it is used for the CCI. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

The ABCNEWS [3] reference did mention about MySurvey, in the article it mentioned "Sites like MySurvey and iPinion also pay to fill out brand surveys." and it also have the hyperlink to the webpage as well. --- (Lsrpopwiki • contribs) - 07:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would be the trivial mention I pointed out in the nomination. In total, the article contains five references; I'll spell each one out in more detail:

1. alexa.com site traffic report for the website archive.org ... presumably this is a typo; but even if changed to MySurvey.com, it's only statistical data
2. bbb.org report for
   Lightspeed Research
   which operates MySurvey.com - has a trivial mention of "Lightspeed Research also doing business as mysurvey.com" and a pair of links
3. abcnews.go.com article on shopping sites has a trivial mention of "Sites like MySurvey and iPinion also pay to fill out brand surveys" and a link
4. reuters.com article about an Ad Council Campaign - does not mention MySurvey.com by name, instead indirectly references via the trivial mention "The Ad Council tracking study was an online survey, fielded by Lightspeed Research in June 2012 and June 2013"
5. usatoday.com article about Super Bowl marketing - no mention of MySurvey.com, instead a trivial mention of Lightspeed Research stating "Nearly two-thirds of 18- to 34-year-olds planning to watch the Super Bowl have smartphones and intend to use them while watching the game, says Lightspeed Research"

None of these meet the threshold of notability listed at either

WP:N (follow those links to see Wikipedia's guideline on establishing notability). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

@

conflict of interest guideline should apply? --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  00:48, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Selective merge to Kantar Group#Lightspeed Research. Can't see this survey has sufficient notability to justify its own page, but it could be mentioned in the page about the parent company and have a redirect to there. Qwfp (talk) 12:30, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

This seems an ideal solution to me; similar to how

Lightspeed Research already redirects to Kantar Group. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think there is enough coverage to establish notability. Some examples: [4] [5] [6] [7] Northern Antarctica (₵) 03:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those links appear to be

reliable sources. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete or merge per
  SarahStierch (talk) 16:03, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:23, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as lacking in depth coverage in reliable independent sources, as per
  Stuartyeates (talk) 10:34, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Merge - As with comments above, it fails the GNG. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  00:48, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as fails GNG. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 22:46, 21 April 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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Albany Twilight League

Albany Twilight League (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)

Amateur league which shows no reliable sources and does not establish notability. Wizardman 15:46, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep 8,000+ hits on Google News archive. That is significant coverage. Alex (talk) 17:12, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See

C 17:41, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete.. Non notable amateur league.. their are a million like this in the country. Only source is to league website. Spanneraol (talk) 16:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no evidence of meeting
  WP:GNG Secret ^account 23:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete not notable. Northern Antarctica ₵ 02:43, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:50, 14 April 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) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:18, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Porn 2.0

Porn 2.0 (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)

May not be notable. Notability tag present since November 2012. HYH.124 (talk) 17:18, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete.
  WP:NOTNEO. This subject does not in itself have enough notability to justify the existence of an article. If there's anything worth salvaging here, it ought to simply be merged into existing articles on pornography or internet pornography in particular. Ducknish (talk) 00:02, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Not a noteworthy topic. Northern Antarctica (₵) 03:27, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Split and merge. I found three mentions of the term in reliable book sources: Feona Attwood (2010). Porn.com: Making Sense of Online Pornography. Peter Lang. pp. 11–.
  Internet_porn#Video_files_and_streaming_video, and the article is somewhat of a mess trying to talk about those two concepts; not to mention there's some unreferenced spammy content, too. My current recommendation it to split and merge it between the two linked main articles. As written, it seems an inappropriate synthesis of two topics. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:42, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Split and merge per
  WP:DAB. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 19:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - This is a topic of academic interest. See, for example, "Demystifying Porn 2.0: A Look into a Major Adult Video Streaming Website," by Garrett Tyson, et al. Passes GNG. Additionally, this article is a useful navigational device as a de facto "List of...". Carrite (talk) 06:06, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another piece of significant independent coverage, for the record: Jacqui Cheng, "Porn 2.0 is stiff competition for pro pornographers," ARS Technica. Carrite (talk) 06:08, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - passes the GNG per Carrite and what I found among the Google Books hits. [10][11][12][13][14] Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:52, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Widely used term among numerous academics and scholars in multiple secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 10:29, 20 April 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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brennan Thicke

Brennan Thicke (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)

Doesnt meet notability guidelines. Has 2 film credits. LADY LOTUS • TALK 23:49, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• He's mentioned 14 times here. Also mentioned six times here. This link is broken but his name is the title. From everything I can see, and I have done some digging, he is mainly known for the being the son and brother of two famous people, and for having diabetes. He has been mentioned several times, but he is always secondary in that coverage, so I feel I would have to say that Delete is the logical conclusion. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Two of the four sentences in this stub are about
  roles were notable. Bearian (talk) 19:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was Procedural close. Flat Out let's discuss it 10:04, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rasheed Turabi

Rasheed Turabi (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 article has been deleted under other names including

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.

Willie Jerome Manning

Willie Jerome Manning (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 crimes of which Manning was convicted were not of historic significance. One of his cases was linked to wider issues (a state court decision and FBI reviews of testimony), but only indirectly, and only for a short period of time. Smallnslow (talk) 15:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PERP The crimes of which Manning was convicted were not of historic significance. One of his cases was linked to wider issues (a state court decision and FBI reviews of testimony), but only indirectly, and only for a short period of time.Smallnslow (talk) 14:58, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All murders are terrible, but there are huge numbers of them worldwide each year. For instance, ‘Globally, the total number of annual deaths estimated by UNODC to be homicides in 2010 was 468,000.’ http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/statistics/Homicide/Globa_study_on_homicide_2011_web.pdf United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime Global Study on Homicide, Executive Summary (P.9). While a particular murder or murders understandably horrifies the community in which it’s taken place, this horrified reaction must be occurring regularly across the world. Though each case must feel dreadfully noteworthy to the community affected, it/they would need to stand out from other murders in some way to be ‘noteworthy’ or ‘historical’ enough for a Wikipedia entry.

In Manning’s cases it’s been suggested that it’s the two double murders that stand out. But the motive given by prosecutors for each of the double murders was theft. If someone plans to steal, and doesn’t mind killing in order to do that, presumably he kills anybody who obstructs his purpose. So I assume if there had been one or three people in the way, the murderer would have killed that one or those three if he had the wherewithal to do that. Two, then, is a random number in each case. There’s nothing premeditated, unusual, noteworthy or historical about both incidents involving double murders – it’s just coincidence. Changing the name of the article wouldn’t alter this.

Regarding possibly moving this elsewhere, there’s a section in the Wikipedia FBI article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Bureau_of_Investigation on ‘Controversies’, but nothing about the Hair Review controversy. In the existing subsections under ‘Controversies’ there’s only a very small amount of text for each. So even if a Hair Review section is created in the future, Manning could conceivably warrant a mention, but no more than that – his case is only one example of many. Smallnslow (talk) 16:01, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support deletion for reasons given, but if any of the information would fit well into other relevant Wikipedia articles then it ought to be put there instead of being completely removed from Wikipedia. Maybe there isn't any such information, but it would be good to check.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:57, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose deletion and censorship of Wikipedia. This is a notable case that has been written about in most of the major media of the United States. The case has led the FBI to rethink its policy on issuing evidentiary opinions. That aspect of this alone makes it a notable case. The crimes in question are extremely unusual -- who else in the history of the world has been convicted of two separate double murders? The case has been discussed in RS secondary sources over a long period of time, now exceeding 21 years. The editor who has proposed this deletion is a SPA (single purpose account) who has only edited Wikipedia for purpose of pushing a POV on this particular article. Since he/she can't dictate the article, he/she wants it deleted. That is censorship, plain and simple. Bundlesofsticks (talk) 01:52, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is a nationally important case that has been written about in the Atlantic Monthly and New York Times, among other RSS. If there really are problems with the article as alleged above, they seem to be minor enough to be dealt with by editing rather than deletion. Shamrockshake (talk) 21:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Being "written about" in the NYT in and of itself does not make someone notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:43, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This case has been discussed nationally and inter(?)nationally. When a case is discussed nationally, it becomes notable. This is different from a murder that is only written about in the local paper and then forgotten when the trial is over. 205.197.176.130 (talk) 19:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorsing my earlier archived comment: I've proposed that the article Willie Jerome Manning should be deleted, for the following reasons: Per WP:Perp: An article about Manning would be appropriate only if a well-documented historical event has emerged from the crimes of which he’s convicted. And, to quote WP:Perp, ‘Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role.’ Manning’s cases don’t fit this profile.

There’s nothing in reliable secondary news sources to suggest that the crimes of which Manning was convicted were in themselves of historic significance.

Reliable secondary sources covered issues arising from one of his cases at a national and international level for a short period around the date of his scheduled execution in May 2013. These sources reported first the state supreme court’s denial of DNA and fingerprint testing to Manning, and then the subsequent revelation by the FBI/DOJ that Manning’s trial hair and ballistics testimony had been flawed. However, the ‘significant attention’ of reliable sources was only indirectly related to Manning – the focus was instead on the court’s unusual decision and the FBI’s review of hair testimony. Reliable secondary sources have never suggested that Manning had any role, let alone a significant one, in either the court’s decision or the FBI review.

Manning’s case was mentioned again briefly in reliable sources in July 2013, when the FBI admitted that his case was one of 27 death penalty cases to have suffered flawed hair testimony; again, there was no suggestion that Manning had played a role in this – he was mentioned only as an example. Apart from this passing allusion, Manning’s case hasn’t persisted in reliable sources beyond the news coverage at the time of his scheduled execution. Smallnslow (talk) 23:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Responding to comment made by Bundlesofsticks

Being written about in most of the major media of the United States doesn’t make Manning’s first case notable, as this degree of coverage lasted only a few days. The longer-term reporting in local news outlets reflects the length of time Manning’s cases have been going through the courts rather than anything notable about Manning or his cases.

You’re mistaken in thinking that Manning’s first case led the FBI to rethink its policy on issuing evidentiary opinions – this must have happened much earlier. On July 11 2012, the Washington Post reported http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/justice-dept-fbi-to-review-use-of-forensic-evidence-in-thousands-of-cases/2012/07/10/gJQAT6DlbW_story.html “The Justice Department and the FBI have launched a review of thousands of criminal cases to determine whether any defendants were wrongly convicted or deserve a new trial because of flawed forensic evidence... The undertaking is the largest post-conviction review ever done by the FBI. It will include cases conducted by all FBI Laboratory hair and fiber examiners since at least 1985 and may reach earlier if records are available… The review comes after The Washington Post reported in April that Justice Department officials had known for years that flawed forensic work might have led to the convictions of potentially innocent people but had not performed a thorough review of the cases.”

Presumably if the FBI was worried about the mistakes that its agents had made in the past, its policy on issuing evidentiary opinions for current and future cases must already have become more stringent at this point (i.e. nearly a year before Manning’s scheduled execution).

A sentence about the FBI hair testimony was removed from the lead by Magnolia677. If you felt this aspect made Manning’s first case notable, why didn’t you replace the sentence?

The United Nations’ figure of 468,000 homicides worldwide in the year 2010 (see my comment on 29 March) suggests the probability that globally there have been tens of millions of homicides since the process of convicting began. Thus statistically the likelihood of there being no other double murder convictions must be infinitesimally small. In any case, what’s notable about 2+2 murder victims, as opposed, for instance, to 1+3, or 3+2, or 1+2+1, or any other combination of numbers? Unless something of significance generates or influences the numbers involved, the numbers are just that – numbers. And in Manning’s cases the motive of theft would have produced a random number in each case (see my comment on 29 March).

Re PoV pushing - this is being done by the editor who has accused me of doing this, not by me. For instance, this editor resisted and protested the change from ‘committed murders’ to the more neutral ‘been convicted of murders’. And he/she resisted the replacement of text linked to a court record to make what he/she called a pertinent point, whereas I followed WP:BLPPRIMARY and substituted a secondary source rather than another court document. I’ve been attempting to make this article more neutral, not pushing a point of view.

Re censorship – I’m not guilty of this, but it has been attempted by the editor who has accused me of it (this editor at one stage suggested that I should go away and look for an easier article to edit). I've simply followed WP:PERP when evaluating Manning’s claim to notability and historic significance, with reference to reliable secondary sources. All editors are entitled to contribute to the discussion, and I welcome any valid points that are made.Smallnslow (talk) 23:37, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Response to Shamrockshake: Per WP:PERP Coverage in US national media lasted only a few days - it didn’t persist beyond contemporaneous news coverage and it didn’t devote significant attention to Manning’s role (the focus instead was on the court’s decision not to allow DNA/ fingerprint testing, and on the FBI announcement re flawed hair and ballistics testimony). No amount of editing would alter this. Smallnslow (talk) 23:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Purge all content sourced to primary sources; as it stands the article is an
  Stuartyeates (talk) 02:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Are you trying to be funny? The page is about somebody who killed 4 people. Should it have a paragraph about his hobbies or the pet turtle he had as a kid? 205.197.176.130 (talk) 19:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm suggesting adding basic biographic details in a neutral manner. For an excellent example of how this can be done, see

Stuartyeates (talk) 19:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep - I heard about this case on the news and read WIkipedia to learn the background. I really think that's what Wikipedia is for and think removing useful articles is nonsense. 12.219.81.130 (talk) 17:19, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Readers need to feel confident that Wikipedia articles are neutral. This article isn’t. It uses primary sources, and its reporting of secondary sources is selective and biased. You would have got more accurate information from reliable online news sources. Smallnslow (talk) 23:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:03, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - If the main complaint about the article is improperly sourced statements, why not either add reliable sources or delete the statements in question. Any editor can do that. There is no need to delete the whole article. Bellczar (talk) 18:07, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  No, the issue being discussed isn’t improperly sourced statements – it’s whether Manning’s notable or of historic significance as in WP:PERP.Smallnslow (talk) 21:10, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the complaints here seems to be that the article is not properly sourced. that is not a reason for deletion and easily fixed. Especially in a well covered case like this.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:09, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  This article is at AfD because of Manning’s lack of notability, not because of its poor sourcing. Smallnslow (talk) 08:57, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:52, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I think the notability of this case is clear. Widespread news coverage. Perhaps the article could be rewritten, but there is notability here. Bali88 (talk) 09:44, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Widespread news coverage occurred only for the period around Manning’s scheduled execution. This doesn’t amount to notability per

  WP:PERP, which requires ‘sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role’. Smallnslow (talk) 21:23, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Keep as extremely notable, As above it needs rewriting but other than that I see no valid reason to delete. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 21:10, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Per

  WP:PERP: I’ve explained at length why Manning is not notable. You haven’t said why you think he is. Smallnslow (talk) 22:23, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:44, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lars R. Trodson

Lars R. Trodson (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 author. specifically: (1) His novels are almost unknown and probably self published eagles fly Alone is in 2 libraries a/c Worldcat, tide Turning is in none at all. (2) No evidence of any of his films being of the least importance--they were shown at festivals, but he only prize is a specialized prize at a festival so minor it does not even have a WP article, (3) I see no evidence that the plays were ever produced at a venue significant enough to even get into Google.

Google shows an absence of third party significant references--the only material is minor notes by local sources and his firms own press releases. Editor in chief of Manchester Union Leader would be notable ; "an editor" is not.

Not suprisingly, this appears to be an autobiography. DGG ( talk ) 00:13, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I think I have to agree with the nominator - at this point we do not have third-party reliable sources which would establish notability.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - although for a different reason: even if everything could be sourced, this is a local reporter and editor of a seasonal, small-town paper, which has a market smaller than the whole of
  not just a resume? Bearian (talk) 17:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as non notable author. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 21:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete
  WP:UNOPPOSED is enough at this point for me, but the reasoning above seems clear.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:34, 21 April 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. Lack of independent sources not resolved, claims of mentions by other authors not backed by references to non-trivial discussion of the subject, therefore the policy based reasons favour deletion. Guy (Help!) 17:33, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neville Goddard

Neville Goddard (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 biography that has no independent sources, although it has lots of primary ones. My internet search did not turn up any of the significant and independent coverage required to meet

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No independent sources and no indication of notability.131.118.229.18 (talk) 19:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Google Books shows a lot of mentions about him by other authors. --
  C 05:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I would appreciate it if you can point out sources that have significant independent coverage of him (and please add them to the article). I found a few passing mentions, but nothing to show he meets

WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 17:42, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Yeah you can see there are more than a few by looking in Google Books, past the first page of results. "Significant" doesn't mean "long". --

C 17:45, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

In my search the first 3 pages are all his writings. Then I find his name in single sentence mentions which seems like the classic definition of "passing mentions" and not "significant independent coverage". Show me some significant coverage and I'm quite willing to change my vote--I merely happened upon this article and noticed that it had no independent references and that he seemed to fail to meet the criteria at

WP:NAUTHOR. Papaursa (talk) 18:37, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes the first few pages are his works but then there are a significant number of mentions of his name in various works including some direct assertions that he is someone of importance to some people. "Significant coverage" can mean anything including a significant number of mentions by other authors. --

C 19:12, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Everyone is "someone of importance to some people". So far, I'm not convinced--can you give some specific examples? The ones I looked at were not enough to convince me of his notability. These should also be added to the article before someone else comes along and reaches the same conclusion I did. I'm not trying to be difficult, I just need some convincing. Until I came across this article I'd never heard of him so I have no vested interest one way or the other. Papaursa (talk) 19:32, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Papaursa, I think this person is notable and the sources are sufficient. --

C 21:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Relisted

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:31, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:40, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per GreenC. --Calypsomusic (talk) 13:40, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article is entirely sourced to his own writings, and when a reasonable search fails to find secondary
  WP:RS sources talking about the subject, that's usually a good sign the subject isn't notable enough for an article. I request that anyone who wants to keep it give us the secondary sources that we've missed. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, mentions appear to be passing in nature more than anything substantial enough to show notability or build an article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:17, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non notable, no significant discussion in RS. - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:31, 16 April 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.

Mario Cerrito

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}}.

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

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

No indication of

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom - Seems the type who might become notable soon, but possible future notability can't carry the day today. BennyHillbilly (talk) 06:24, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Subject should not be deleted. After reading guidelines about notability, subject meets them. Also, subject seems to be multi faceted. His references, NJ.com,

Are not "local coverage" NJ.com is the state of New Jerseys, news website and subject has been covered in it more then a few times (via google.) Mario Cerrito should stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikePlant1 (talk • contribs) 08:06, April 1, 2014 (UTC) — MikePlant1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:31, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP Read references and they are legitimate per criteria of notability on wikipedia. Has worked with notable Renoly Santiago on project. I vote keep it, seems there will be a lot more to read about him in the future as well. With a notable start and valid references its ready. Lot more to this guy then pages like this have.....https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Ellis_(author)CaliforniaWave (talk) 14:49, 6 April 2014 (UTC) — CaliforniaWave (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Not sure what Huon was talking about, I read this and it seems notable. Subject has clout. Keep.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by RedNecker13 (talk • contribs) 05:22, 9 April 2014 — RedNecker13 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

• Delete without prejudice. With respects to the SPA "keeps" above... yes, Mario is just beginning to have mentions in reliable sources,[15][16][17] but per
  TOO SOON. Notability is dependent on a longer career, more prominent projects, a cult following, or far more coverage. Let his works get out there and gain wider coverage and the article might well be worthy of a return. But not quite yet. Sorry. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:05, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GNOME Maps

GNOME Maps (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)

* Speedy KEEP. It is part of the GNOME and was merely introduced with GNOME 3.10. But maybe we should delete the article, that took me 10minutes to create and then wait until somebody re-creates it again, when the software will be considered notable enough... sure. Keep up the "good" "work". User:ScotXW^t@lk 11:25, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your reason to keep is an instance of

WP:INHERIT: being related to something notable does not imply sufficient notability to warrant a separate article. Also, please stay civil and don't take this personally. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:14, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Relisted

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:46, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is

WP:SNOW instance. GNOME Maps is rather new application – it actually has preview status within GNOME, which is local analog to beta. Given that GNOME is one of most widely deployed UNIX desktop environments, most likely this application will recieve its share of reviews and other sorts of public attention rather sooner then later. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 20:41, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Your reasoning goes directly against

WP:CRYSTAL, and I don't see how the snowball clause applies here. There's enough precedent for deleting pages about very minor computer programs, including open sources ones and including ones that are part of larger packages that do meet the notability guidelines. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 23:37, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Relisted

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG. – — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 16:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete being part of GNOME doesn't make this particular application notable (and GNOME has 100s of such apps). The only references around are mostly list of new GNOME apps where maps is listed as one of them. --CyberXRef^☎ 21:56, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 13:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of selectmen of Lakeville, Massachusetts

List of selectmen of Lakeville, Massachusetts (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)

Political office in a town of 10,000 that has not received significant coverage outside of the local newspaper Hirolovesswords (talk) 03:51, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – a list of political officials from a small town is not likely to be notable enough for Wikipedia. Northern Antarctica (₵) 20:10, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy - while normally I would delete
  such a list as trivial, I'd like to see if this could be fixed and proven to be notable. Bearian (talk) 19:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:35, 14 April 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) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 NAB Challenge

2014 NAB Challenge (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)

2014 NAB Challenge does not meet notability guidelines

Delete Prior to 2014 the NAB Cup was a stand-alone pre-season competition which concluded with a Grand Final, with a trophy and prize money awarded. In 2014, the NAB Challenge was changed to a set of practice matches with no winner and no prizes. This gives it no stand-alone notability as a competition, no continuity with previous pre-season competitions, no lasting historical significance, and is therefore an

WP:AVOIDSPLIT violation. I go one step further to say that the primary content (the match results) is inconsequential judged on either a stand-alone basis or in the context of the 2014 AFL season, and therefore in my view it should be deleted as a whole from both 2014 NAB Challenge and the parent article 2014 AFL season, and that the most suitable location for pre-season results is the individual club season pages (e.g. 2014 Carlton Football Club season). However, I would say that a valid compromise would be to merge the results into 2014 AFL season, and format the match results in a collapsible table that defaults to the hidden condition; that leaves the content accessible but reflects its lower importance. Aspirex (talk) 08:26, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep. The
  Australian Football League pre-season competition has changed formats a number of times over the years. Perhaps it will change back (in which case this will be notable as the odd one out), perhaps it won't (in which case this will be notable as the first season of a new format). It doesn't matter, really - regardless of our personal opinions as to the worth of the competition, it received significant coverage in independent sources. There was a clear distinction between the coverage of the NAB Challenge and the practice matches - for example, statistics were published for the former but not for the latter. StAnselm (talk) 11:41, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Has significant coverage, is part of the set of pre-season comp articles, so it belongs in it's own article for categorising rather than hiding in the main season article. Individual club season articles don't exist for all clubs. The-Pope (talk) 15:15, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I dispute your assertions that the series has "significant coverage". If you refer to
    routine coverage of each game". In the case of the NAB Challenge, all coverage has been routine; therefore the existence of coverage alone does form the basis of notability. Aspirex (talk) 06:57, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Relisted

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:50, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:27, 14 April 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.

Aaron Wolf

Aaron_Wolf (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 article does not meet, in my view, the notability guidelines for people. It is true the filmmaker won some minor awards, but not notable ones. The articles and citations do not appear to be significant nor are they focused on Aaron Wolf. If anything, the focus of the articles and awards are on the production company and the films themselves, and none of those seem to themselves meet the notability criteria either. The article appeared to be more significant when the same person was presumed to be also running for congress, but that is actually a different person with a similar name. Backfromquadrangle (talk) 00:54, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I was going to say redirect, but I changed my mind. I'm sort of neutral over this. I can see redirecting it to Guest House, but there is some coverage for him in relation to one of his other films as well.
  (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:06, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This film makes does not pass notabiity guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:07, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was keep. I have to say this is the least popular scientific term I've run into on Wikipedia, but the keeps have the strongest evidence for their case. Perhaps this ought to be a redirect, but we'll leave that to the editing process Drmies (talk) 23:05, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eidonomy

Eidonomy (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)

1) The term "eidonomy" is practically non-existent outside of this wikipedia page, a google search barely produces 2000 results worldwide few of which can be considered trustworthy sources and many that use this same wikipedia article as source.

2) The reference from "museumstuff.com" (???) isn't a reference at all is it? the page contains zero information, it makes no sense at all to quote it as a source.

3) The article also contains debatable information (based on established definitions that have been long accepted by the scientific community) such as the statement "anatomy referring to internal morphology" when most serious medical textbooks do not specify this at all. I.e. human skin is an external organ and still considered part of human anatomy. Definitions of anatomy: ^{[1] [2]} Furthermore a distinct division between "external morphology" and "internal morphology" is dubious and lacks specificity.

In any case, I found different quotes:

The eidos or eidonomy is defined by Bateson (by opposition to ETHOS or ethonomy) as the norm of thought of a structured cultural group, i.e. the type of mental operations governing that group's common structure of thought.^[3]

which of course has nothing to do with external morphology, but also:

Morphology breaks down into two main areas: 'eidonomy', taking stock of the external appearance of an organism, and 'anatomy', which looks at the structure of a creature's internal organs ^[4]

and this:

Other specialists regard morphology as a study of only external body structure, and anatomy as a study of internal structure, separate from morphology (e.g. Zakhvatkin, 1986). ^[5]

and yet a different definition:

The description of insect skeletal system (eidonomy) is, as in most of the recent textbooks, too short, but clear and instructive.^[6]

but once again, considering anatomy as the study of internal organs is something that the vast majority of scientific community does not contemplate (hence the few/obscure results on a global search) and the discrepancy of definitions (see quotes) is the proverbial nail in the coffin. In my opinion the article should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roastpenguin (talk • contribs) 12:24, 20 October 2013‎

• Comments I think the article may just be poorly written, which doesn't necessarily warrant its deletion. I'll admit eidonomy is an obscure term to me, but it surfaces occasionally (~85 hits on Google Scholar), is mentioned in current works and seems to be rather popular with European authors in reference to taxonomy and nomenclature. This quote from Dubois & Jean Raffaëlli 2009 may help: "Taxonomy consists in two rather different subfields that use largely different methods and concepts. The first one, the ‘‘science of species’’, was called microtaxonomy by Mayr & Ashlock (1980) and eidonomy by Dubois (2008b,d). Its duty is to define, recognize and describe taxa of nomenclatural rank species." See also Tancoigne; et al. (2011). "Insights from Zootaxa on potential trends in zoological taxonomic activity". Frontiers in Zoology. 8 (1): 5.
  alpha taxonomy and/or anatomy. --Animalparty-- (talk) 01:13, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete. Article topic doesn't seem to exist outside its wikipedia page. Jordanee155 (talk) 14:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above account has been indefinitely blocked as a sock abusing multiple accounts to influence a (different) AfD. A pattern suggests this !vote was made to hide the editors tracks and true intentions as a SPA. --

C 16:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (
  ^Notify_Online 16:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The scholar results clearly show that the claim this term does not exist outside Wikipedia is false. There may well be some variation in how the term is used, possibly even two different meanings, but this book gives a definition virtually identical to the Wikipedia definition. In any case, variation in meaning is not in itself grounds for deletion of an article—it might, however, mean that we should have two articles. Dubois discusses the subject at length under Taxonomic categories so this is definitely capable of expanding into more than a dicdef. It may not currently be a fashionable means of categorising taxa, but it is still encyclopaedic and its scholarly status can be explained in the article. SpinningSpark 13:25, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:08, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Animalparty and Spinningspark. GScholar shows the term exists in the academic literature and as noted, the term is discussed in depth. An article on this topic can be developed, which is good enough for a keep. I wouldn't be opposed to a merge, as it may be better discussed in the context of various defns of taxonomy, but I see no reason to delete. --Mark viking (talk) 20:13, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I think combining with a different context would be more appropriate for this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XjiGsawyouthx (talk • contribs) 19:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was merge to Stanton, Gloucestershire. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sheppey Corner

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

)

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

No evidence of notability. Search for sources found nothing significant that mentions this place (other than Wikipedia mirrors, and estate agent details). It doesn't appear on a Google Image search. Fails

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:52, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:52, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Note that the nom's claim that there are no sources except mirrors and estate agent details is frankly rubbish given that it's a listed building and there is a link to English Heritage's listing for it (which I added myself before it was nominated). I think we can take that as a significant and reliable source. Note also that it now appears to be called Pixie Cottage, although it's not entirely clear whether "Sheppey Corner" applies only to this cottage or to all three cottages in the listing, including Little Sheppey House. I'm not yet convinced of its notability (Grade II buildings haven't been considered to be automatically notable in the past), but let's not have spurious claims. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:52, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, a Grade II listing is not regarded as "significant". Such listings are also giving to paving stones, lamp posts and bollards. We generally consider if it is relevant to mention them in a parent article, but would need something more significant for a stand alone article. If there are enough listed items in one place, then an article can be usefully made out of them, such as here: Regency_Square,_Brighton#Architecture. Do bear in mind that Wikipedia is not a directory - listing all Grade II buildings is best served by English Heritage given that they list all buildings built before 1700, regardless of their interest to a general reader of an encyclopedia. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:45, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Such listings are also giving to paving stones, lamp posts and bollards". What on earth is your point? Yes, some "lamp posts and bollards" are Grade II listed (no paving stones to my knowledge, although there might be); so are hundreds of thousands of actual buildings, many of them very old (and there are certainly gateposts that are Grade I listed - not sure about either lamp posts or bollards!). But my point was that you claimed there were no significant sources, which is clearly not true. EH listing is a significant source. I'm not saying the article doesn't need more to be kept, but misrepresentation of the facts is never a good idea in an AfD. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:53, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• At most Weak keep -- The English Heritage listing is certainly a source, but there are too many Grade II listed buildings for WP to have articles on them all. I think that should be limited to Grade I and II*. Anotehr alternative might be to merge the article to an article on the village Stanton, Gloucestershire, which is quite modest in length. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:16, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I checked the listing on english heritage and googled, nothing there, not notable. Szzuk (talk) 20:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into the village article, per Peterkingiron. Mjroots (talk) 20:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Stanton, Gloucestershire. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:10, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:40, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Real Shia

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

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

Another one of Striver's fiefdom of synthesized articles, there doesn't seem to be any usage of this term in Sunni or Shi'a websites or literature and in fact I'm even having trouble finding it used on polemical discussion forums. There is no proof that this term is even real and in fact it isn't even technically a neologism because nobody uses it. I think this topic is just something the creator made up. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:55, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:56, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also just noticed that there is a version of this article on Persian Wikipedia. It was created over a year ago by a sockpuppet with a rather long rap sheet. There is a single reference but it's to some site advertising for Microsoft products, I think? Either way, the fact that the version in another language is also bogus does sound fishy. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There would need to be significant discussion of the topic in secondary sources, not just a mention or two in primary. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. In fact it has only a reference which is a microsoft advertising product. Rinfoli {*Di§cu$$ with me"#} 15:04, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:40, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shaw Mudge & Company

Shaw Mudge & Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Excruciatingly detailed history of a company which does not appear to have achieved any significant

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Article has been extensively rewritten since nomination. It now describes a company with little to differentiate it from every other company in the world. Extensive citations are mostly to archived copies of the company's own website, or their advertisements in publications. Some valid references, but not enough to indicate real notability. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:29, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Neither the article nor any of the references tell us why we should care about this company in any way. It doesn't even look like it's been written by a competent publicist, as there's not even an attempt to address notability. It almost looks like it's just a small company where someone has said "we should get ourselves listed on Wikipedia". We're not
  Yellow Pages, though. If there is a later claim of notability, it'll be easy to re-create this article, but right now it doesn't belong here. RomanSpa (talk) 07:50, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:13, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I can find only routine announcements about this company, predominantly around its 2006 sale. Fails
  WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 06:22, 14 April 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.