Wikipedia : Articles for deletion/Log/2014 August 1

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

PROD deleted. Not a notable actor per

WP:GNG as has received no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Any mention in sources is passing mention in stories about Girl Meets World and in a cast bio on the website for a short. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails
WP:TOOSOON. --Bejnar (talk) 22:12, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Too soon for a bio at this time. I don't see any non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:30, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above in RE: too soon for a bio and fails
WP:ENT, the only links are to IMDB and twitter. This individual has not done enough notable work. Maybe later in his career? Jab843 (talk) 03:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as per the others, fails
WP:ENT. Vanamonde93 (talk) 12:40, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was keep. I assume the people who !voted "keep but cleanup" will actually go and do some cleaning up. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:38, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Creative industry in Brazil

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

advertising The Banner talk 23:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not to impugn the nominator's judgement, but was the edit summary of the article creator This is the translation of a PT Wikipedia article" missed? ArcAngel (talk) ) 00:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- No, this was not missed. But perhaps you have missed that user Sistema Firjan has written an article that is mainly about the company/company products of Firjan. The Banner talk 20:02, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rigorously cleanup - I see no validity in the deletion rationale of 'advertising' which can be resolved by rigorous editorial action. It is certainly a poor article but the subject is clearly notable and there are a whole bunch of supporting sources and more are available. The fact that the creator may have a COI is a matter for cleanup and for closely examining the content, and the other apparently promotional article that he created is being separately considered. When we have a clearly encyclopaedic concept, we should be cleaning and improving (or perhaps robustly stubbing), not deleting. The Whispering Wind (talk) 22:47, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep
WP:COI is a serious problem, but not a valid reason for deletion. Vanamonde93 (talk) 12:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
- I know that but the nomination is for advertising, not COI. The Banner talk 20:40, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:13, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Fadelle

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

Fails

WP:AUTHOR. Only published single book, which has published 50k copies. Can't find anything on Google Iraq. scope_creep talk

1 August 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: his book was translated into at least 6 languages; there are various references in French media and probably also in other countries; he is frequently interviewed by French media and invited to talk in conferences in France. He is not particularly known in Iraq especially under this name. Peter17 (talk) 06:45, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What are the other references and any names attached to him. scope_creep talk 16:59 02 August 2014 (UTC)

~~Comment~~ Keep French Wikipedia points us to some sources, e.g., [3] and [4] that may help satisfy
WP:BASIC. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 23:31, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak keep It would really be better to get English sources, but that's not an absolute requirement for passing the notability test. This seems more like a poorly written article without proper formatting of sources than deletion material. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:22, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- 50,000 copies is a substantial number for a Christian book. His story of fleeing from being murdered by his family is regreatably typcial for those who leave Islam. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:12, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per

WP:CSD#A7. Bbb23 (talk) 23:03, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply

Ariana Carly

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

Nearly empty; no references, and uncategorized. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 22:43, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 23:43, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rajesh More

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

Minor fashionista who works as costume designer in Telugu film industry. Fails

WP:BIO

scope_creep 22:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete • Fails
talk • contribs} 12:53, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete . Per nomination . No significance contributions or achievements. Most links only have passing mentions - SaHiL (talk) 10:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination. No significant coverage in the sources provided, and I can't seem to find any, either. Unfortunately, his first and last names are both rather common, making sorting sources a right royal pain in the arse. Vanamonde93 (talk) 12:50, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:52, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Britton

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

Fails

WP:POLITICIAN scope_creep talk 21:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply

list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:17, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, unelected candidates for office do not qualify for Wikipedia articles just for being candidates, per
conflict of interest editing by the campaign manager when a brochure about an unelected candidate shows up as its creator's first-ever contribution to Wikipedia. Delete with fire. Bearcat (talk) 23:20, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. A clear-cut case. --
Mkativerata (talk) 01:13, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Per the excellent argument by Bearcat. The one source is primary, so there is not sufficient indication of notability. Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:10, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 23:41, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Glamarus

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

This has been tagged for speedy deletion, but an ordinary film can't be deleted per A7 (it's a creative work). I declined the speedy tag, but neither the film nor the director is notable as far as I can tell. Bbb23 (talk) 21:02, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Virtually nothing out there -- and nothing that would confer notability. --Larry (talk) 22:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with predjudice. This one smacks of
inherited notability). ArcAngel (talk) ) 00:54, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete for failing
WP:NFF. No coverage of the unreleased film, yet. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:43, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Obvious one. Fails
WP:COI. --Jersey92 (talk) 23:56, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete' per
WP:CRYSTAL - it appears not to have been released yet. Bearian (talk) 20:07, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete fails
WP:NFF. Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:13, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was keep. (

Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply

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

Customer Service System

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

Not an article on CSS's generally, it's about a tremendously non-notable CSS system. Although BT is a notable company, the CSS itself does not make money, it services the customer base....much like any other CSS in any other company the panda ₯’ 20:43, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—A quick google search turned up

A long article in New Scientist.^[1]
A book^[2] which describes the CSS in great detail over several chapters. While the book is part of the BT Telecommunications Series, the publisher is independent of BT.
A (likely) peer-reviewed publication^[3] in the BT Technology Journal (reprinted in the above book).
An substantial article^[4] in The Independent.
Another substantial article^[5] in The Guardian (needs verification, as this is a copy of the original story).

I'm seeing several more passing references in the software engineering literature. The system appears to have been unusually large (and unusually long-lived), and enough people wrote about it at length that I think we can create a pretty decent article. A move to Customer service software (BT) might be in order if the article survives the AfD. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 09:20, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

^[1] ^[2] ^[3] ^[4] ^[5]

^ ^a ^b Conner, Steve (23 January 1986). "Your computerised phone bill is delayed". New Scientist. 109 (1492): 28.
^
ISBN 0412825406
.

^ ^a ^b Harrison, P. F. (January 1997). "Customer Service System—past, present and future". BT Technology Journal. 15 (1). London: 29–45.(subscription required)
^ ^a ^b Bowen, David (19 December 1994). "Network: A real know-it-all at BT". The Independent.
^ ^a ^b Neesham, Claire (31 May 1990). "BT express replaces the shunters". The Guardian. Manchester. p. 31.

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 20:37, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The sources identified by User:Lesser Cartographies indicate that this is reasonable encyclopaedic content with prior note, providing depth on the history of business IT deployment. AllyD (talk) 08:00, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Into BT Group. --Jersey92 (talk) 23:59, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability established by
WP:UNDUE issue. ~KvnG 15:01, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 23:45, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deepak Singh

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

Non-notable actor. The first nomination was four years ago and I believe for a different person. However, this one is also a autobiographical vanity page of a minor actor. None of the roles he held were of any note. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
talk • contribs} 06:56, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 20:35, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has advanced to "a very sensitive role of an Engineering student"? Does not meet
WP:NACTOR.--Rpclod (talk) 02:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Easily fails
WP:GNG. --Jersey92 (talk) 23:56, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 23:44, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi-tech export

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

WP:CORPDEPTH. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:34, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails
talk • contribs} 16:00, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 20:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet the criteria set forth in
WP:COMPANY.--Rpclod (talk) 02:34, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Non-notable business. --Jersey92 (talk) 23:57, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (

Sign my Guestbook 06:40, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply

Carmelita Little Turtle

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

Fails

WP:GNG. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:19, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply

Delete. This doesn't pass
WP:GNG. I don't really get why this has an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EMachine03 (talk • contribs) 12:08, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 20:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I found some sources:
- Tharp, Paula E. Shooting constructed realities: the self-defining art of Native American women photographers Shelley Niro and Carm Little Turtle and selected poets. Diss. University of Oklahoma, 1997.
- Biographical entries in:
  - Rushing III, W. Jackson, ed. Native American art in the Twentieth Century: makers, meanings, histories. Routledge, 2013.
  - Hillstrom, Laurie Collier, and Kevin Hillstrom. "Carm, Little Turtle." Contemporary Women Artists. Detroit: St. James, 1999. 405-06. Print.
  - Congdon, Kristin G., and Kara Kelley Hallmark. Twentieth Century United States Photographers: A Student's Guide. Greenwood Publishing Group, 2008. (possibly, I can not read the full work)
- A many page interview in Abbott, Lawrence, ed. I stand in the center of the good: interviews with contemporary Native American artists. U of Nebraska Press, 1994.

And so appears to meet

WP:GNG. Antrocent (♫♬) 21:08, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply

@Antrocent: Mention is not enough. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:04, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per
WP:CREATIVE. Also, she was apparently at the center of a 1993 dispute about Native American identity, but I can't read the entire newspaper.com copy of the Santa Fe Reporter article about this. [9] --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:00, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

@

WP:GNG. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:06, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply

These are not "mentions". The WP:CREATIVE. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:50, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, per additional references, seems to pass
WP:CREATIVE. EricSerge (talk) 16:15, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 23:44, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trafford Sub Aqua Club

Trafford Sub Aqua Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non notable organisation, reads like WP:PROMOTION. Names of committee doesn't make it notable. Orphaned article, so nothing reaches here anyway Gbawden (talk) 08:13, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A non notable club. Szzuk (talk) 20:13, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 20:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not appear to have any notability.--Rpclod (talk) 02:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- NN local club. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:25, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This close is without prejudice to the creation of a redirect. --j⚛e decker ^talk 23:53, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mitgift

Mitgift (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 charting album with no sources
WP:NALBUM Gaijin42 (talk) 03:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & Redirect to Subway to Sally as per nom Fails NALBUM . –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:28, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 20:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The band itself seems to be susceptible to AfD. The article does not provide anything to suggest that this album is notable.--Rpclod (talk) 02:41, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 23:44, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Žan Benedičič

it's stupid to delete this thread, he's an international for his national team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naughty James (talk • contribs) 15:51, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To top that, he's just signed for Leeds United on loan. --Mr. Mario (talk) 06:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails
WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by an IP without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:53, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:54, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails
WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:32, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Fails
WP:CRYSTAL, No problem with recreation of this article if he ever meets any of the NFOOTY criteria. Fenix down (talk) 08:02, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Fails
WP:NFOOTBALL. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 13:10, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:52, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Capri Centre Mall

Capri Centre Mall (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)

NN under 250,000 sq. ft. shopping mall. In addition to it not being notable, the consensus, as reflected in the discussion at "Common Outcomes; Malls", is that we don't generally retain stand-alone articles of malls below 500K sq. ft. (some editors believe the cutoff is a higher square footage). Epeefleche (talk) 19:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The one source in the article is not a reliable source. Couldn't find anything with google beyond passing mentions. Fails
WP:GNG. Me5000 (talk) 22:56, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete
independent sources. Philg88 ^♦talk 07:02, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. SpinningSpark 01:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Royal City Centre

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

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

NN 359,000 sq. ft. shopping mall. PROD was removed. In addition to it not being notable, the consensus, as reflected in the discussion at "Common Outcomes; Malls", is that we don't generally retain stand-alone articles of malls below 500K sq. ft. (some editors believe the cutoff is a higher square footage). Epeefleche (talk) 19:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The one source in the article is a primary source. All a google search turned up was routine coverage about a Safeway being converted into a Save-On-Foods and about a Walmart being built, nothing about the mall itself. Fails
WP:GNG. Me5000 (talk) 22:42, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 22:58, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yaohan Centre

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

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

NN 120,000 sq. ft. shopping mall. PROD was removed. In addition to it not being notable, the consensus, as reflected in the discussion at "Common Outcomes; Malls", is that we don't generally retain stand-alone articles of malls below 500K sq. ft. (some editors believe the cutoff is a higher square footage). Epeefleche (talk) 19:29, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The one source in the article simply states that the mall is asian themed and its size, nothing else. I could only find 2 sources in google, both about food there: [11] and [12], but neither are an indication of notability. Fails
WP:GNG Me5000 (talk) 22:26, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Google search failed to turn up reference which would satisfy
WP:N. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:46, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Letter to a CES Director

Letter to a CES Director (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)

Weak evidence that the "letter" is notable. "Viral" claim made by author himself on bio page, and this article almost exclusively serves to recap the works' contents -- a violation of
WP:INDISCRIMINATE. —Eustress 19:26, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Virality isn't notability, but I did add a hostile source (Christensen) which also lists the work as 'viral'.Darmokand (talk) 05:03, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep. The work has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself. For example, a extensive review that was published in the journal Interpreter. A few other independent non-trivial works: [13][14][15] Darmokand (talk) 04:53, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LOL Are you Jeremy? You're the author of the article too. Who do you think you're fooling? Tkfy7cf (talk) 05:29, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, Tk, I have absolutely no ties to the book's author. I learned about it when it was featured in a 3-hr in-depth interview on John Dehlin's show Mormon Stories. --Darmokand (talk) 11:48, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. Fails WP:BOOK. Fails WP:BIO. Not notable enough for Wikipedia. Tkfy7cf (talk) 04:26, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~, since I'm not a passionate deletionist. I tend to agree that this doesn't satisfy
WP:BKCRIT, the book hasn't won any awards, nor is it taught in school, nor is the author notable. It's just circulated online as a PDF amongst interested groups. ——Rich jj (talk) 19:26, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

For what it's worth, FairMormon isn't a wiki, it's a private organization that happens to use MediaWiki software to host their organization's statments. But it's not a true "anyone can edit" wiki-- we can use it as a WP:RS for the views of FairMormon. --Darmokand (talk) 21:49, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken that this is a private wiki by authorized FairMormon editors. I'll change my vote (can I do that?) to weak indifference. ——Rich jj (talk) 22:36, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only blogs and forums talk about this letter, so not enough sources to make it notable. Frmorrison (talk) 21:18, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Interpreter (journal), Mormon Stories Podcast, Salt Lake Tribune story and FairMormon should all qualify as "coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". --Darmokand (talk) 21:44, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that these are independent, and probably sufficient, though not a long or impressive list. I read
WP:GNG again and it seems the bar is fairly low. Interpreter is probably the best as an online journal that can also do print issues (or by the article). FairMormon and Mormon Stories are probably good sources, recognizing their respective biases. The SL Trib one is really a blog post about the LCS Business College spamming, and I thought the author was Peggy Fletcher Stack (who is shown in the header), but the article appears to be signed by "Pamela Manson". I often like print sources by traditional institutions (newspapers, academic journals, large magazines or publishing houses), but these sources are fine, just not ideal. And earlier I muddied the waters with blogs, but the authors, Jeff Lindsay and Brian C. Hales, are recognized notable figures in Mormon apologetics. ——Rich jj (talk) 22:36, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
An open letter was written criticizing a particular theology, a couple websites opposed to the theology picked it up, and then a couple websites supporting the theology (unofficial volunteer websites) responded to the letter's arguments. Nothing notable about the letter or the events surrounding it from what I can see, unless you consider spamming a few hundred people with the letter a notable event. Hence, this article can only reiterate the contents of the letter, which is
WP:INDISCRIMINATE). —Eustress 03:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak Delete Doesn't look like it satisfies WP:GNG. The only two references I can find demonstrating its notability are two links to Mormon online journals. The Salt Lake Tribune article is a pretty significant independent source, but there's a grand total of one sentence dedicated to the subject of this article. Karzelek (talk) 22:45, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete IMO this doesn't satisfy the "significant coverage" criteria of
WP:GNG, which means at this point it is extremely difficult to make this any more than a summary-only description of the work. Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball, so unless and until the Letter gets significant coverage in independent sources or has been shown to have a significant impact, then I don't think it crosses the notability threshold. --FyzixFighter (talk) 16:45, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. SpinningSpark 01:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Clark (writer)

Jessica Clark (writer) (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)

Couldn't establish that it meets WP:Notability (people). Unref blp. Boleyn (talk) 19:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Inadequate sources. Substantial career achievement is expected for a Wikipedia BLP. Not the case here. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Delete Unreferenced BLP. No indication that the subject satisfies the notability guidelines. Safiel (talk) 05:29, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What is the difference between Head editor and Executive editor. According to
WP:WAWARD) 14:24, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment She was chief editor of a magazine, as opposed to a journal. That MIGHT confer notability, but under a different notability standard than
WP:NACADEMICS. Even so, the article is entirely unsourced and unless somebody can place some reliable sources, I would not be able to change my stance from delete. The lack of BLP sources is enough on its own to require deletion of the article at this time. If the article is sourced by reliable sources that indicate notability, I will reconsider. Safiel (talk) 17:39, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - I agree with all the above. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 17:44, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep - Not really my area but seems as though some sources around. added one but hard to sift through google....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:12, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (
Sign my Guestbook 10:41, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Meadowmont, North Carolina

Meadowmont, North Carolina (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 small community. The sources listed include no third-party
WP:GNG
is not met.
The same set of sources was assessed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meadowmont Village, where the article Meadowmont Village was deleted. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:10, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Meadowmont is a notable community not only in that it contains within its boundaries a property listed on the National Register of Historic Places by the National Park Service of the U.S. Dept. of the Interior, but is also a complete community hosting part of the University of North Carolina, residential areas, shopping areas, offices, and hotels, and plays a significant part in the lives of the people who live, work, study, and visit there. While the article did borrow the sources of the now-deleted Meadowmont Village (essentially a shopping center within Meadowmont) article, it now incorporates an additional link to the Meadowmont House's official listing on the National Register of Historic Place's website. That website is specifically dedicated to identifying properties that are generally notable in the history of the United States after meeting stringent qualifications as arbited by a cabinet-level agency of the United States government and certainly meets Wikipedia's general notability requirements. A community that incorporates a site that is generally notable is also generally notable. Larry Grossman (talk) 19:50, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've now added an additional link to an article discussing the Meadowmont House from the "N&O" (
News & Observer), the regional daily newspaper of North Carolina's Research Triangle area, which is another independent, reliable source meeting Wikipedia's standards. Larry Grossman (talk) 20:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
@
WP:N, and recognise that the commentary in the first sentence of his keep !vote (that it "plays a significant part in the lives of the people who live, work, study, and visit there") is irrelevant to an AFD discussion: it confuses the notion of importance with that of notability. ---BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Thank you, BrownHairedGirl. Yes, I am the article's creator. I'll review the notability guidelines you mentioned over the next few days and improve the article to meet them if that can be done. In the meantime, I'd appreciate if deletion could be deferred until I've had a few days to digest the guidelines and apply them. ...and I apologize for the broken link. I created it by searching the NPS's website to the page that lists the Meadowmont House as a historical property but it looks like that a dynamic link that expires, so I'll need to find a fixed link that others can pull up, and that will be my first improvement task. Larry Grossman (talk) 01:04, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've now added the title and page number reference to the article in N&O Profiling the Meadowmont House. Larry Grossman (talk) 01:32, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've now fixed the link to the National Park Service's website for their National Register of Historic Places. You can now find the Meadowmont House's listing by going to http://www.nps.gov/nr/research/data_downloads/Main.xlsx and then searching on reference numer: 85001554. Larry Grossman (talk) 05:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Found a good amount of significant secondary coverage here and here and here. This was after only a few seconds of looking. --Oakshade (talk) 01:46, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How do we close this debate and remove the deletion notice on the article? It seems to me the improvements made to the article have addressed the initial concerns that caused the article to be nominated for deletion and I see two votes in favor of keeping. Larry Grossman (talk) 21:52, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AfD debates typically go eight days and then closed by an administrator. It can close early as a "keep" if the nom withdraws the nomination or under
WP:SNOW Keep situation, that is it so many people would be in favor of keeping it that it would be very unlikely enough delete-preferring editors would come along before the eight days have ended. --Oakshade (talk) 23:00, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Thanks, Oakshade. I see. I just didn't want the nomination to drag on forever. I really like the article now that it has been improved (and I think actually the nomination was actually helpful in spurring that), so I hope the final determination is to keep, but I'll let things run their due course then. Larry Grossman (talk) 02:17, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Old discussion from
VfD

Discussion concluded and article kept on May 28, 2004
From Cleanup: Europe, the Middle East and Africa - dict. def. (I moved this to vfd from cleanup and fully support its deletion - SimonP)

Delete. All geographic articles are on their own pages at Wikipedia (e.g. Europe is at Europe.) Who would put all these at one article?? 66.32.80.15 01:11, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Google it, it's not intended as a goegraphical article. It's a commonly used abbreviation. --Starx 02:37, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

It is redirected from
EMEA, maybe it should be merged into that article and deleted afterwards? -- till we ☼☽ | Talk 22:25, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't understand what you want done. How do we merge something into a redirect? - SimonP 20:57, May 22, 2004 (UTC)

Keep. I've expanded it slightly. Not a dicdef as I understand it (i.e. I would expect to find this defined here, not in Wiktionary). -- sjorford 14:19, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing in here that couldn't be found out from looking up the three parts separately. DJ Clayworth 17:54, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked it up because the initials stood on the rear end of my laptop. So I guess it is useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.136.155.218 (talk) 21:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:51, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hilton Liverpool Hotel

Hilton Liverpool Hotel (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)

Seemingly non notable hotel, creator possibly connected to hilton Benboy00 (talk) 18:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of any notability, I was gonna suggest redirecting but since Liverpool isn't even mentioned on Hilton Worldwide I see no point. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above, I see no notability. Jab843 (talk) 04:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very ordinary, run of the mill three-star hotel. No special notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:03, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 22:57, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Artista Eli

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

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

Doesn't appear to meet
WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 18:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 19:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, considering I added the 'notability' template. I can't find a single hint of reliable coverage about Artista Eli or Helen Shaw, in Spanish or English. Sionk (talk) 21:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I have not located any
WP:ARTIST. AllyD (talk) 20:22, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was redirect to
Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:35, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Enforced retirement

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

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

I can't find any sources using this definition. The term appears to actually be synonymous with Mandatory retirement. Given that there's already a page for mandatory retirement, there's no need for this page. Tchaliburton (talk) 17:45, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Mandatory retirement is not the same as enforced retirement.
talk) 17:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

According to whom? These suggest otherwise: 1, 2, 3. Tchaliburton (talk) 17:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is some use of this term in news and books but this article seems
~~notability of the term in this article's way. - Pmedema (talk) 18:51, 1 August 2014 (UTC)~~[reply
]
Redirect - The search term to redirect to to Mandatory retirement is viable. - Pmedema (talk) 13:51, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: Then lets redirect it to Mandatory retirement.
talk) 20:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to mandatory retirement. Seems like the obvious solution. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to mandatory retirement. Kierzek (talk) 16:32, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was userfy. I'm going to move this to
User:Jonas_Vinther/Animal welfare during World War II. Jonas, please continue to work on the moved article and discard the copy-and-paste version in your sandbox. Copy-paste destroys the edit history, which is important to preserve. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:25, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Animal welfare during World War II

Animal welfare during World War II (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 appears to be factual, but the way the information is synthesized is a case of original research which violates
WP:GNG. Animal welfare is a notable subject, but we can't create articles about notable subjects with arbitrary time frames. If there are reliable sources covering this specific topic then I will retract this nomination. Tchaliburton (talk) 17:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: I can assure you,
talk) 17:47, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Perhaps the article should be userfied until you have included those sources demonstrating notability. Then it could be moved into the article space when it's ready. Tchaliburton (talk) 17:51, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps. But ... I think that when it's "out in the open" common editors will have a chance to see it and contribute to it - nobody's going to find it in my sandbox.
talk) 18:02, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm undecided about deletion, but I do want to note that we already have Animal welfare in Nazi Germany. I suppose the question here is whether reliable sources indicate that there is notable material about other countries that is specific to that time period. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:40, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There does seem to be quite a lot of literature specific to Nazi Germany. Not so much with any of the other countries. That makes sense given the political and philosophical changes during the Nazi regime. It's also worth noting that Animal welfare in Nazi Germany covers a wider time frame than WWII because the Nazi era is not synonymous with the WWII era. Tchaliburton (talk) 00:12, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Gentlemen, I can assure you that all the country's mentioned in the article, there is substantial reliable sources on, otherwise I would not have added them. The article is simply incomplete, as I stated before. Perhaps I was stupid to make a real article before it was finish or much longer.
talk) 13:18, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
No, not stupid at all! Please just make sure that you have
secondary sources that indicate that, for each country included, there is actually a subject for that time period that should be treated as distinct and notable, relative to times before and after. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:07, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
I can assure you
talk) 16:15, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
I think you should retract your deletion,
talk) 17:17, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you are referring to. Please explain. If I deleted something that I should not have, I'll certainly fix it, but I don't know what this is. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:47, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have plenty of reliable, independent, third-party sources to massive expand this article. There is defiantly enough sources to cover the topics mentioned and more. I will began the expansion sooner or later. I'm simply saying, as you suggested yourself in case there should be enough sources or coverage, that you should retract your deletion. You understand now,
talk) 00:15, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
OK, I think you are saying that you want me to change my "undecided" comment to "keep". (In reality, I never endorsed deletion so far.) I'm comfortable leaving what I said as it is, pending further discussion here. I could be persuaded to "keep" sooner by seeing some key sources that would unambiguously establish the other countries as noteworthy and distinct topics during the time period (beyond just statements that such sources exist). I could also be persuaded to delete by arguments that such sources really do not exist, although at the moment I'm leaning towards erring on the side of giving the page more time. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Grrrrr! I'm such a moron, I confused you with
talk) 22:11, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
--Tryptofish (talk) 22:12, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply:
Jonas Vinther, I'm still not seeing any references that focus on the WWII period. The closest are the references that discuss animal welfare in Nazi Germany. The section on Britain still strikes me as original research and there is nothing about any of the other belligerents (in fact, most of the belligerents aren't even listed). I'm not saying that this article can't be notable, I'm just saying it's not ready yet. I would support converting this to a draft in your user space until it's ready. Tchaliburton (talk) 03:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete -- This is a mere essay, not an encyclopedic article. I did hear something that a lot of British people had their pets put donw at the oubreak of war, perhaps because they did not think they would be able to feed them, when food was rationed. Otherwise, I doubt animal welfare in UK or US was much different in 1940 from 1935 or 1948. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:50, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fine - then delete it, and I'll re-create it when I made it a FA-class article in my userbox. — Preceding
talk • contribs
) 17:31, August 5, 2014‎
If that's how this ends, it doesn't have to be deleted. You can just have it moved into your user space. But if you can provide, here, a list of the kinds of sources editors are asking for, we might decided to "keep". --Tryptofish (talk) 18:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I realize I could do that. But, without sounding too negative, sounds like a lot of work just to prove that I have enough reliable, third-party, independent sources. Then I'd rather complete it in my userbox.
talk) 20:01, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Move to user space, per the request directly above. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:18, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I have already copy + paste everything into my sandbox, so might as well just delete it, and I'll re-crate it later.
talk) 12:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:46, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Protestant Nationalist Party

Protestant Nationalist Party (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 somewhat odd nomination, as I created the article a few years ago. It's based on one source, which isn't great, but the book used is reliable on other topics, had a good amount of details on the grouping, and I didn't doubt that there would be more information elsewhere. The problem is that there don't appear to be any other sources mentioning the group, and what information is in the article doesn't check out. While it's verifiable that some Protestants were Irish nationalists, I no longer believe that an organisation of this name existed with the cited details. Whether it's a
copyright trap or simply the author covering a subject outside their main area of research, unless someone else can turn up additional reliable sources, it should be deleted. Warofdreams talk 16:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, per nom. Fails
WP:ORG.--JayJasper (talk) 20:40, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Can't find any reason to keep. Stacie Croquet (talk) 00:57, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom.
talk) 15:06, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. If the creator suggests deletion, and there is not substantial other contributions from others (and there seem not to be, from quick review of article's history), then delete. I hate "fake AFD's" where a creator-nominator suggests an article for deletion when they wish for it to be kept, but they want something else: affirmation, to pre-empt a real AFD, i dunno what other bad reason. Here, the creator-nominator seems serious they want it deleted. Just delete. --do ncr am 05:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:46, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amrit Row

Amrit Row (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)

Appears to be an autobiography, all sources are from same website, which also appear to be published by the author. Also does not follow notability guidelines. smileguy91^talk 15:47, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 19:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Searches have turned up nothing beyond a bare-bones one-line listing in Apollo for his 2003 Watershed exhibition, which is far from enough for the
WP:CREATIVE criteria. AllyD (talk) 19:43, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DElete -- I detect hints that he earns his living by other measn than his art. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:51, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:47, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Milton

Steve Milton (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)

Trivial coverage, no real claim to notability. We don't cover every odd record John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:BLP1E. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 16:40, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per above. I hope we don't have an article on the current record-holder, of "the biggest
rubber band ball"... --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 17:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:47, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bhaskar Roy

Bhaskar Roy (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)

Prod removed by the creator. The texts of the article exhibit some sign of significance of the subject. So, it is here. Subject does not appear to have significant coverage in multiple
Anupmehra -Let's talk! 14:02, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete • as per nomination.
talk • contribs} 12:55, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete . per nomination. No links even in the article that support whatever its contents claim about Roy. -- SaHiL (talk) 10:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No action on the images; if you believe they should be deleted, please take those to
Wikipedia:Files for deletion -- RoySmith (talk) 22:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

DWFL-FM

DWFL-FM (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)

Such a hoax station, just a mashup of the stations MOR 101.9 For Life!, Natural 97.9, 96.3 Easy Rock, 106.7 Energy FM, and 101.1 Yes! FM. It is just clearly a hoax. Hamham31 Heke!KushKush! 13:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment With a home page and Facebook account, it is NOT clearly a hoax article. Sure, the sources are dodgy (the homepage "about" link directs to this article, for instance), but if this station has a registered website, it's not a hoax. ArcAngel (talk) ) 14:59, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to be fair, its website is on Weebly rather than its own domain (something which most, though perhaps admittedly not all, radio stations with websites would have) — and it's not unheard of for people to create websites for things (even radio stations sometimes) that exist only in their own imaginations. Not that those things prove that it's a hoax, necessarily — but the existence of a website doesn't inherently prove that it's not, either. Bearcat (talk) 20:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm concerned, this is an extremely badly-written and entirely
WP:NMEDIA
), or it could indeed be a hoax page (it's not unheard of for people to create webpages for fantasy organizations that don't really exist, which is why we insist on reliable source coverage rather than taking the existence of a webpage as prima facie evidence of notability), or it could be just a badly written advert for a real radio station.

I don't have the depth of knowledge about Philippine media that would be necessary to really answer that — for instance, I wouldn't know where to even begin searching for any actual evidence of its existence or lack thereof, such as whether it has a broadcasting license or not. But that said, my suspicions are certainly raised by (a) the fact that its brand name is just the brand names of four other stations in the same market hinged together (real radio stations do not do this unless their management team failed Marketing 101); and (b) the fact that according to the Metro Manila radio market template, there's another station, DWBM-FM, first-adjacent to the frequency that this station claims to be on (and another one first-adjacent to the frequency that this one claims to have started out on, too). But that's virtually impossible, because nobody would be able to actually listen to either station's signal due to all the cross-channel leakage.

But the fact that I can't definitively prove that it's a hoax doesn't really matter, since it's a bad and unsourced article that can't be kept in this form regardless of whether it's real or a hoax. So no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can cite proper sourcing to prove that it really exists as a real, properly licensed radio station — but in this form it's an absolute delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Bearcat said pretty much what I had to, but the fact that the 'station' depends on a Weebly to host their website and the MS-Paint/Paint.net quality station logos, the 13 Facebook 'likes' and the station's Twitter linking to an 'owner' who doesn't seem to be out of junior high make me think this 'station' has no broadcast tower and is another radiofan pipe dream who is solely webstreaming. chatter) 02:34, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. This is an obvious hoax. Also, I did a quick research about the author of this article. It seems that a 15 year old kid did this and all of the uploaded pictures here are also in his social media accounts. -WayKurat (talk) 13:05, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Take off the air - Hoax. Nuff said. Also, I can recall once tuning in to near the claimed frequency (possibly while looking for radio stations to listen to), and around 104.9 it's just static.
csdnew 02:32, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - Just to add in my vote, the admin that will close this discussion might consider deleting all the images uploaded by this user as well. If those photos still remain here, he might just recreate the article and use them again. Here is the list of photos:

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.

Andrew Michaels

The result was 'speedy delete' as a
blatant hoax by Choess

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

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

WP:CSD#G5 as having been created and maintained by a fairly extensive sock farm, but I'm not sure if G5 applies to articles created before the socking was discovered so I'll take the safe route and bring it to AFD. The sources listed for this person are all self-created bios at various sites (such as athletebio.com) or mentions of honor by the Harris Charitable Trust (an organization that appears rather shady and possibly non-existent other than their website, whose honorees include all of the people that this sock farm is trying to promote on Wikipedia). No actual independent coverage in any reliable source. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Well, that was quick. Apparently the article was deleted while I was typing the nomination! How nice! WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:11, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. As an aside, the last AfD should also have been closed as delete. Jenks24 (talk) 14:20, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Altogen Biosystems

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Altogen Biosystems

Articles for deletion/Altogen Biosystems (2nd nomination)

Articles for deletion/Altogen Biosystems (3rd nomination)

Altogen Biosystems (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)

Despite the previous prod having been removed, there was zero support for keeping this at the last AFD. Despite there being zero support for keeping this, the AFD was
WP:CORPDEPTH than it was before. The available "sources" are a combination of press releases and primary material. Pinging duffbeerforme - the only other person who contributed to the last discussion (the nominator). St★lwart¹¹¹ 10:09, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nominator. No
notability. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 11:23, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Not
media of limited interest, not enough. A search found nothing better. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:29, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Angelo DePalma is cited by a good portion of 4,600 results in Google Scholar. So much for AUD

Delete per the first nomination. ArcAngel (talk) ) 15:02, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it should have been the first time around. Fails
WP:GNG. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:05, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep The sources are good, as shown above, and the 44 results in Scholar for Altogen itself, and probably other stuff as well, which I would search for if I was not filled with renewed disgust for the commonplace laziness of deletors. Nom and deletion arguments fail BEFORE. Anarchangel (talk) 23:27, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A majority of those Scholar hits state nothing more than "we used their product" by naming the company as a parenthetical without providing any information. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:31, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And
no you're not. St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:22, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:33, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Road, Hong Kong

Jordan Road, Hong Kong (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 street in Hong Kong. The article fails to provide sufficient sources or even details in the text, to support its notability. Delete as per
WP:RS. Note that existence does not prove notability. The road needs to be the a subject covered by the source not simply a location mentioned while discussing some ancillary topic. Rincewind42 (talk) 08:27, 1 August 2014 (UTC) Rincewind42 (talk) 08:27, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

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

Keep per being the naming origin of the MTR
Jordan Station and the surrounding (pseudo-)area of Jordan. Also three sources from zh:佐敦道. Agree though that the current state fails to address these. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hisashiyarouin (talk • contribs
) 09:48, 1 August 2014‎

Having something named after you isn't the definition of notability used in Wikipedia. The source in the Chinese wiki only show that the road exists. One is simply a traffic ordinance listing Jordan Road among many others that mini-buses cannot drive on. While that is sufficient to verify the claim on the article it is not sufficient to establish notability. Rincewind42 (talk) 16:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to
Talk) 18:33, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment I can't speak to the other street nominations at this time, but Jordan Road is the subject of at least some significant coverage. See, e.g., Streets: Exploring Kowloon 24.151.10.165 (talk) 18:55, 1 August 2014 (UTC) I added a brief history section to the article based on this ref. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 19:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Major street in one of the centers of Hong Kong. If it's notable enough for there to be a station,
Jordan Station, and a pier, Jordan Road Ferry Pier, it's notable enough for WP. Significant coverage easily found too [17] (also found by the anon). --Oakshade (talk) 01:32, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Your using "named after" to mean "a dedication made to an important place of person." In that sense, Jordan Road doesn't really have a station and a pier named after it. The station is located on Jordan Road and the Pier was too until reclamation work moved it. Jordon Road is simply the address of these places and nothing more. Rincewind42 (talk) 03:04, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A major street in a major city, and, as noted by 24.151.10.165, substantive coverage exists. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:10, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that
WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. It is not suffient to say srouces exit within this debate. You must point to the source as not all sources are reliable or sufficient. Rincewind42 (talk) 16:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect (Switched from Keep after further research) to
notability purposes Philg88 ^♦talk 08:26, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

While multiple sources are "generally expected,"
WP:GNG does not and has never required more than one. It all depends, as GNG states, on the quality and depth of coverage. The source found above is very in-depth that goes on multiple book pages and actually gives more than the usual "multiple" coverages on other subjects combined. --Oakshade (talk) 16:06, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Two (very small) pages in fact while most of the first one is taken up by a map. And it's a travel guide to exploring Kowloon rather than an academic/historical source. Not enough weight there IMHO to carry it across the GNG threshold. Philg88 ^♦talk 19:16, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I count six pages (not small), pages 60 through 65. It's basically an entire chapter devoted to Jourdan Road. --Oakshade (talk) 19:41, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, the entire chapter is entitled "Jordan Road", but aside from the minimal coverage mentioned above, the remainder is vignettes about Yau ma Tei Typhoon Shelter, Yue Hwa Department Store, Kowloon Union Church and Manse and the Diocesan Girls School. Coverage of entities in Jordan Road doesn't make the road notable based on the above mentioned principle of
notability not being inherited. Philg88 ^♦talk 21:22, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
All encapsulated on Jordan Road. Besides, we're only talking about English language sources in a Chinese language dominated region. If this coverage exists already in English, most certainly more exists in Chinese. --Oakshade (talk) 22:47, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I can't find anything through a google book search.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 23:53, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Oakshade: More sources do not exist in Chinese because that's something I always check WRT China/Hong Kong articles. There are passing mentions of bus routes and buildings in the street but nothing more substantive. Philg88 ^♦talk 07:08, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I frequently find sources in English that others miss, but not being a Chinese reader, I can't confirm that say any of these might be appropriate sources. While I trust you've made some effort to look, I just don't see this as the "proof" end-all on sources existing in Chinese or not.--Oakshade (talk) 19:58, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Chinese Wikipedia's version of the article 佐敦道 contains two historical sources: ^ 《九龍街道命名考源》梁濤著，第二十八頁，市政局出版，1993年 and ^ 《香港歷史文化小百科16－趣談九龍街道》爾東著，第141-142頁，明報出版社，2004年11月，
ISBN 962-8871-46-3. (Note: User:Hisashiyarouin noted these above.) I added a translate template to the article to aid in evaluating the sources and the text. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 21:24, 3 August 2014 (UTC) Cantonese Wikipedia's version 佐敦道 is much shorter but links these two sources: "道路及鐵路－曾改名道路（二）九龍及新界". and "香港掌故街道名稱的由來（六之三）". and this New York Times article [18] about the Dr. Jordan after whom the street was reported to have been renamed. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 21:48, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Even if the street was named after this doctor (which it wasn't, that honour goes to
general notability guideline. Philg88 ^♦talk 07:08, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
The disparity in description is exactly why I was asking others ("comment") to evaluate these potential sources. I'm the one who added the reference to
John Newell Jordan and the Hong Kong University reference supporting this addition. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 15:34, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

WP:GNG does not require only "academic texts" as evidence of notability and travel guides are not excluded either. As long as the combined coverage is significant, it can come from travel guides, academic texts or anything else that's secondary to the topic and subject to editorial oversight.--Oakshade (talk) 17:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to List of streets and roads in Hong Kong. Not notable enough.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 13:30, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or, if the historical references I've added to the article and noted above are not deemed significant coverage, merge to
WP:GEOLAND "Examples may include subdivisions, business parks, housing developments, informal regions of a state, unofficial neighborhoods, etc. – any of which could be considered notable on a case-by-case basis, given non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources." 24.151.10.165 (talk) 15:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Sorry, but
WP:GEOLAND doesn't apply to roads. The idea behind the suggested redirect outcome is that all the verifiable and sourced information on Jordan Road (of which there isn't much) can go in the appropriate entry in List of streets and roads in Hong Kong with a "See also" mention in Jordan, Hong Kong. Any ancillary or "tourism" type info belongs in Wikitravel or Wikivoyage, not here. Philg88 ^♦talk 05:40, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Just to be clear, the policy cites above are to support merging to the neighborhood article. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 14:54, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:21, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael David Ewart,

Michael David Ewart, (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:NOTCV DexDor (talk) 04:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete No sources at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7--180.172.239.231 (talk) 09:35, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no refs, unclear claim to notability. Hairhorn (talk) 13:53, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Autobiographical nonsense. MiracleMat (talk) 09:39, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per
WP:CSD#G3. Bbb23 (talk) 01:10, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Utkal Gaurab

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

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

A CSD A7 tag was originally placed on this article, but was removed by the article's creator. Having read through the article, it asserts importance by having won awards, so CSD is not appropriate for this article. Having said that, I performed due research on this person and could not find any sources which establish the notability of this person, nor could I find an exact match of the named award given (Dada Saheb Palekar Award). ArcAngel (talk) ) 03:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 04:35, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete • Fails
talk • contribs} 13:04, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Since the article asserts credibility by claiming an award was won, A7 doesn't apply in this case. ArcAngel (talk) ) 13:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@

talk • contribs} 16:40, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply

Talk) 14:23, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply

Speedy delete This article is an obvious hoax and multiple speedy criteria applies. @
Bollywood cinema. There is also a list of people who received this award. I can't see the subjects name in that list. It is claimed that he got the award in 2014 which is not possible since ~~Gulzar has got it.~~ (see my next comment) There are many similar issues with this article. I guess, the award certificate is madeup of a computer software maybe by Adobe photoshop or similar. No reliable third party source found in World Wide Web to verify the claims which are obviously hoax. I'm going to add those speedy tags again. It seems to me that the creator has COI issues as well. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 14:17, 9 August 2014 (UTC)][reply
]

@

Ah.. another look told me that the award is not even given out this year i.e. the award is not given out in 2014. Then how did the subject got it?? The last recipent was Gulzar in 2013. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 14:29, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@

Talk) 14:35, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice against recreation as a redirect to

Vatican Cricket Team. Jenks24 (talk) 14:16, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply

Aamir Bhatti

Absolutely. Luckily, though, it passes

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

A run-of-the-mill priest whose sole distinction appears to be that he plays on the Vatican cricket team, a symbolic organization that has no more standing in professional cricket leagues than does any company cricket team.

T

03:02, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Delete This article also has major coat-racking issues. If people want an article on the
Vatican Cricket Team, create that article. In addition, he seems not to even be a priest yet, not that it really has much bearing on his notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to
Vatican Cricket Team (which has been the subject of extensive coverage from international sources). St★lwart¹¹¹ 09:56, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Non-notable cricket player for a start-up ~~semi-pro~~ amateur team, which team itself is arguably non-notable per
WP:ROUTINE to trivial in any event). Of the three remaining independent sources (BBC, The Hindu and Dawn), only one has substantial coverage of the subject, therefore subject fails GNG for lack of in-depth coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Do not delete - WikiProject Biography has rated this article as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. Tissueboy (talk) 03:04, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? And what does a WikiProject's evaluation of an article have to do with the notability of the subject? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:13, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only the Dawn article comes remotely close to covering the subject in detail in a reliable source. Neither alone, nor in combination with the mentions in other sources, is that sufficient for GNG purposes. --
Mkativerata (talk) 11:43, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete -- I dount that the cricket team is even semi-pro: it looks amateur to me. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:07, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completely fails
WP:ATH requirements. His notability as a priest is also virtually non-existent. Just to correct a comment above, this team isn't even remotely semi-professional! Most national cricket teams outside of the ten full members of the ICC, with exception to a few of its associate members, are for the most part amateur teams. Oh and Tissueboy's reason to keep is the most bizarre argument I've heard in four years on here! Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 16:45, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - I've now created
WP:GNG but he was asked to meet with the Governor as an international representative of the team; I think his name is a plausible search term and we now have a redirect target. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:03, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - the Vatican's cricket team most certainly fails
WP:CRIN requirements for teams - it's not played representative cricket and isn't even recognised by the International Cricket Council! Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 16:27, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

WP:CRIN after that is moot. St★lwart¹¹¹ 18:08, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply

Delete per comments above especially re
WP:CRIN as per User:AssociateAffiliate. Jack | ^{talk page} 21:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was No consensus. Randykitty (talk) 16:56, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Imvbox

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

Does not meet

WP:GNG Kansiime (talk) 05:06, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the sourcing in the article appears to meet
WP:WEB or not. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:37, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: I am the article's creator. The first, third and fourth sources cited in the article discuss the topic (IMVBox) extensively. They detail IMVBox's aims as a company and mention the company's collection of films. Mairey3005 (talk) 08:43, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am the article's creator. On the matter of
WP:WEB: I have been monitoring IMVBox for some time now and to my mind IMVBox has gained a great deal of recognition over recent months. It seems that many newspapers and news agencies in Iran have picked up on IMVBox’s work and started to cover the company; ISNA, a major news agency in Iran, ran a piece on IMVBox's work and interviewed the director. What comes through in many of the articles is the understanding that IMVBox is fighting a longstanding problem in Iran: online piracy. There is a view, I think, that IMVBox is revolutionising Iranian cinema. It is after all the first time Iranian films have been gathered together on one website. Before IMVBox’s creation Iranian films were available on many websites for illegal download. Iranian filmmakers are beginning to recognise what IMVBox stands for and how it will help them in their work. The press release from 200 Iranian actors and filmmakers received a lot of attention in Iran, and IMVBox was at the centre of the campaign.Mairey3005 (talk) 10:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment I am a subscriber to the IMVBox website and have been for some time. I came across this Wikipedia page when accessing the website online and saw it was up for deletion. I would like to add that IMVBox is a extremely unique service, projecting Iranian cinema onto an accessible, digital platform and therefore indeed revolutionising the genre. It has enabled me to access both important and influential Iranian films that I would otherwise never have had the opportunity of watching. I believe it deserves recognition for continuously supporting a genre, that perhaps somewhat can become overlooked in Western society. The service provided by IMVBox also prevents and fights online piracy, therefore supporting a positive movement for cinema viewed via the Internet. I believe IMVBox deserves recognition and firmly believe it is in coherence with the
WP:WEB guidelines. Ljayne92 (talk) 11:48, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep It has some online sources and it seems like it is a good source for Iranian movies. Frmorrison (talk) 21:19, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am the article's creator. I have just added an article published on BBC Persian that describes the work of IMVBox. BBC Persian surely must qualify as a credible source. Mairey3005 (talk) 15:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Regarding the suggestion to transwiki it to Wikivoyage: that seems far-fetched, but if they want it, they can nudge an admin here and they can surely have it. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:20, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hilton Garden Inn Frankfurt Airport

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

This subject does not appear to meet criteria for inclusion (

WP:NOTABLE), and in fact appears to be an advert from a connected editor. Benboy00 (talk) 19:50, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply

Comment I especially like the ™ and ® symbols, which aren't even present in the source, ruling out a simple copy/paste oversight. Benboy00 (talk) 19:54, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it reads like an entry for a
WikiVoyage. Bearian (talk) 16:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to The Squaire#Tenants. --do ncr am 04:22, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar

♔ 15:30, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:04, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete Just a hotel of no especial significance. Mangoe (talk) 12:37, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (

Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:18, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply

Alashash

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

I found no coverage for this. Fails

WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 00:36, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 00:51, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 00:51, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment: In correcting article title for this Arabic film that never had an English-language release, it does appear that it may have had some Arabic language coverage under "الههانننه". Per
WP:CSB non-English sources are fine in the lack of English language equivalents. I will await input from Wikipedians better able to find and translate. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment The film's Arabic name is "القشاش". The word "الههانننه" has no meaning in Arabic. (Yes, I am a native speaker.) I have corrected the name here and in the article. --Meno25 (talk) 10:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar

♔ 15:30, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:02, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:19, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DivXLand Media Subtitler

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

Searching, I find no sources that demonstrate notability or pass WP:RS, just blogs and the like. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:49, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no significant coverage in independent secondary reliable sources. All I found were
WP:GNG is not addressed. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 15:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:59, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - The article reads like an
advertisement. As is, it seems to provide no value to a Wikipedia user. The software has some coverage, but questionable whether it is sufficient to confer notability. Substantial coverage would likely include critical analysis rather than fluffy marketing.--Rpclod (talk) 18:41, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Does not show significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. The article has received two "reviews" but they don't qualify as significant. Fleet Command (talk) 07:41, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:49, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lost in the riots

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

WP:TOOSOON The article reaches deep to link itself to other notable things in the prose, but it isn't inherited by association. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:20, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any substantial coverage from independent reliable sources, just primary sources, blogs, trivial gig mentions, etc. 4-year-old working band, so may achieve notability in future. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 12:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - local band; no evidence of touring or large concerts. Bearian (talk) 20:14, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:16, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ludic fallacy

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

This term has no independent notability outside of Nicholas Nassim Taleb's work. External references containing this term all refer directly to Taleb and focus on his work in general. I propose merging this article into

The Black Swan (2007 book). Previous discussion on the talk page. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 22:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC) 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 22:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply

It is not true that it has no independent notability. I hear it used frequently in risk management; I did a search on Google Scholar and it has plenty of citations as a fallacy.Limit-theorem (talk)

Care to share? I've looked around pretty extensively and have never found it referenced independent of Taleb's other ideas, indicating that it has no independent notability. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 20:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You are not actually proposing deletion, unless you feel there should not even be a redirect at

WP:BOLDly do) the merge. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply

Hm. If that's procedure I suppose. Admin or non-admin can feel free to close this unless someone else feels that there shouldn't be a redirect. I'll just merge the article myself with redirection to Taleb's page at some point.0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 20:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Ludic fallacy is cited as a "cognitive bias," by Scott Adams in his book "How to Fail at Everything and Still Win Big" (Portfolio Penguin, 2013), page 113. He notes he got the term, and others he cites, from Wikipedia's "List of Cognitive Biases"

Probably should be unsigned, but obviously that doesn't really support notability. It was a mistake to have included it in that list anyway, since it's not really a cognitive bias. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 20:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:56, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am unhappy with the idea that for a concept to be notable it should be used in ways that do not mention its creator. In this case the suggestion seems not to apply anyway[19] and this search suggests more examples though I am blocked from accessing most of them. I am also disappointed about the discussion here which seems to be deprecating having an article because the term "ludic fallacy" may only be used in the popular press. If this were true (and it is not[20]) it might be a reason to make extra efforts to have a responsible article so that intelligent, interested readers can look up a description of the concept and so be better able to assess whatever journalese they are reading and whether the concept itself has any validity. If the present article is "extremely wanting"[21] I would recommend improving it. Whether it should be merged with
The Black Swan (2007 book) is of lesser importance. I think, editorially, it would unbalance that article but that is a matter not for AFD but for talk page discussion. Thincat (talk) 10:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

keep The article needs a lot of help but there's no question about notability: there are plenty of GBook and GScholar references. Merging it back into the book is a mistake; it's indeed possible that any merger should run the other way. Mangoe (talk) 13:47, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep I hear it used frequently in risk management; I did a search on Google Scholar and it has plenty of citations as a fallacy. Limit-theorem (talk) 00:39, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Of course professors are not automatically notable, in that case we could do away with

WP:PROF... Notability could not be established. Randykitty (talk) 15:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply

Olawoye Theo Ladapo

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

After reading the article and using the references provided as a guide, I am not convinced that it meets

talk) 01:40, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply

talk) 01:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC) [reply

talk) 01:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC) [reply

talk) 01:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC) [reply

I do not know this Professor, but I have worked in a Nigerian university, although a long time ago, and I do understand the system somewhat. I think we need to be cautious on this one. The article needs work as do related articles. For example I just added the university where he is a Professor and then discovered that it it is not listed in the disambiguation page Federal University of Technology, so I did that too. Within Nigeria he might well be one of the top professors. He probably spends more time on important national committees that does an average US professor and he will certainly not have the massive research group that leads to a massive number of publications, but he could be notable. The article needs more work, before we can really tell. If he was a US or European professor that work would be done quickly. With a Nigerian it will take time. I am a weak keep for now. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep : Article passed the professor test. Professors are generally notable based on existing

talk) 12:41, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply

Why would you say such a thing? You know from recent AfD experience that professors are not generally notable. They are notable if they pass one or more criteria in

WP:PROF. -- 101.117.110.137 (talk) 10:06, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply

I searched for Professors in

talk) 12:52, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply

Delete: fails

WP:ACADEMIC--Jamie Tubers (talk) 18:19, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply

for verification and clearification.

Comment: :@

WP:ACADEMIC

@

talk) 23:01, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply

The citations given doesn't prove anything. before we even talk about the reliability of the sources, the sources are links to publications of the subject. That alone is "self published" flag. Even if those sources can be used (in which they can't be), they didn't focus on the Subject....they can't establish the notability of the subject. Google didn't bring out anything significant, just the scientific file sharing sites that you used as references. The plain fact is, the subject of this article isn't notable. Don't burden yourself trying to keep it, cos it'd still get deleted anyway. This article fails
WP:Academic.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 23:24, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Fails
WP:PROF#C7, although I can't find such coverage with Google. For searching purposes, be aware that "Olawoye" is the surname (an apparent error by the article creator). -- 101.117.110.137 (talk) 10:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: per above delete votes.
talk) 11:32, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Pullman Standish

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

There was some news coverage for her wedding, but there's inadequate sourcing regarding the subject herself to establish notability at this time. The sources are short blurbs, not the kind of in-depth coverage you'd like to see in order to establish notability. Diannaa (talk) 01:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note this is one of the articles listed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AustralianThreston. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:26, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk to me 01:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The coverage of her wedding is one lines in articles on larger topics and tweets. Nothing here rises to the level of notability. This seems largely designed to make T.R. Threston seem more important.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Probably qualifies under
WP:CSD#G5 as having been created by a member of this sock farm. The sources listed are likely all hoaxes: quickly created websites publishes solely for the purpose of adding credibility to this and the other articles created by the sock farm. The "Harris Charitable Trust" doesn't appear to exist on anyone's radar, but it has honored all of the subjects of this sock farm. Similarly, the Social Network of New York seems to exist only through its own postings in various online forums. No serious coverage exist of the network. Similarly for The Pullman Trust: no sources can be found other than social network postings to verify the existence of this organization. Pullman is surely a socialite, and managed to get her name mentioned in an article about flash weddings, but that seems to be the only legitimate coverage available. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:20, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Other then being mentioned once by an ABCNews report who was quoting a tweet, all these sources are to social media or user-submitted content. I see no evidence that she, her father, or the Pullman trust actually exist. Choess (talk) 12:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above & Mainly WikiDan61 - All created by a sock who prefers promoting non notable people. –Davey2010 • (talk) 13:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I fail to see the relevance with respect to an encyclopedia here, intel on who went to her wedding reads like taken from yellow-press and does not belong, I also highly suspect it being a product of that sockpuppet-zoo around "AustralianThreston", since the article was initiated by one of it's suspected underlings. LagondaDK (talk) 13:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WikiDan61. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 17:15, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete all: After the recent update of LagondaDK on his Talk page I suggest ALL of the "articles" listed on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AustralianThreston as part of the sockpuppet network should be speedy-deleted. I think, this is proof enough, that there is not a single one, which is NOT a hoax or at least provide fake information.--Susumu (talk) 22:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sofia Rodrigues Braganza

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

The level of coverage in third party is not adequate to establish notability. The sources provided in the article are obituaries, short blurbs, and the like. The subject is not notable enough for an article, in my opinion. Diannaa (talk) 00:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note this is one of the articles listed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AustralianThreston. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:26, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk to me 01:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply

talk to me 01:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply

Delete None of the sources rise to the level of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:26, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:DIDEROT Jim-Siduri (talk) 04:55, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All of the sources are deeply suspicious. Like other material in the sockpuppet investigation, the New York Travel Writers Society Annual Report was uploaded to Google Books by self-publishing through CreateSpace. The tributes and its listing as a private stock on Bloomberg are all generated from unchecked data submitted online. In short, the article's subject and her company are social media hoaxes. Choess (talk) 12:17, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under
WP:CSD#G5 for having been created by a member of this sock farm. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:35, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per above & Mainly WikiDan61 - All created by a sock who prefers promoting non notable people. –Davey2010 • (talk) 13:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I fail to see the relevance here ... I am also very alarmed as to the given references, their nature, how they got online, questionable ISBN, sockfarm-involvement. LagondaDK (talk) 14:05, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sockfarm qualifies for G5. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 14:29, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete all: After the recent update of LagondaDK on his Talk page I suggest ALL of the "articles" listed on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AustralianThreston as part of the sockpuppet network should be speedy-deleted. I think, this is proof enough, that there is not a single one, which is NOT a hoax or at least provide fake information.--Susumu (talk) 22:10, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: another product of Australian Threston's sock-farm, intel on Braganza originate from online-profiles like facebook and WordPress and the likes, her company "Braganza Publishing" - said to have been in business for 30 years - is nowhere to be found, only hints in public space, mentioning in "T.R. Threston" related articles that themselves were published in public space. The one web-site that was presented as the company's site ain't convincing at all, does not appear to be professional, established in public space on free to use server and with no list of publication or names of authors whatsoever. A really poor presentation for what is said to be a 100 employees company. Nowadays thats considerably large for a publishing company. After 30 years of publishing one should at least expect some of their books having ended up with either a bookseller or a library. Apart from that: Braganza Publishing would not qualify for an article under the Wikipedia rules, and Sofia Braganza won't either. Most open space sites you find will be self-referential, being linked to T.R. Threston -> John P. Fitzpatrick -> Sofia Braganza -> Braganza Publishing -> World Guide Publishing (T.R. Threston) and back! LagondaDK (talk) 14:03, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John P. Fitzpatrick

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

I'm not seeing adequate coverage in multiple sources independent of the subject of the article to establish notability. The claim to have won an unspecified award comes from here. The NYPPA Website only lists award winners for the last 13 years so it's tough to verify. Diannaa (talk) 00:56, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note this is one of the articles listed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AustralianThreston. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:26, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Minor photographer who was published, that does not make someone notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. EricSerge (talk) 03:28, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails
WP:BASIC. The disturbing "obituary" reference mentions "Fitzpatrick had become extremely vocal towards his hatred towards his former friend and co-worker, award winning travel writer T.R. Threston,..." leading me to conclude that the article was not created with the intent of improving the encyclopedia.- Mr X 12:15, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy delete under
WP:CSD#G5 for having been created by a member of this sock farm
, noted for elaborate hoaxes involving hastily created external websites, and user-generated content of other sites.

Delete per above & Mainly WikiDan61 - All created by a sock who prefers on promoting non notable people. –Davey2010 • (talk) 13:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: And once more: sockfarm-involvement (references, aso) cause suspicion. Apart from that: how is this relevant for an encyclopedia? LagondaDK (talk) 14:08, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't find
third party sources. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 14:23, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy delete all: After the recent update of LagondaDK on his Talk page I suggest ALL of the "articles" listed on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AustralianThreston as part of the sockpuppet network should be speedy-deleted. I think, this is proof enough, that there is not a single one, which is NOT a hoax or at least provide fake information.--Susumu (talk) 22:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not relevant for the encyclopedia. Apart from that: the background-check uncovered a dodgy story of him being threatening to rape and kill both "T.R. Threston" and "Sofia Braganza", both who had Wiki-articles, created by AustralianThreston's (blocked) sock-farm (1st deleted, 2nd AfD running) Fitzpatric hunted by CIA and FBI died in Croatia ... it reads like a dime-novel of the worst kind. Info online are either from facebook or twitter-accounts or released on free-to-use web-sites that ain't proper source. At some point Fitzpatrick claims to have worked for the "National Geographic Magazine", but there is no mentioning of him there. Footnote 6 hints to him working for a motorsport magazine, but if you check for his name there you will only find a photo of one "John Fitzpatrick" having a race in an old Ford against a Mini Cooper, no photo "by" him. Photoshopped profile-photoes like here that is a badly photoshopped version of this don't help. There is one photographer named "John Fitzpatrick" (no "P." there), but hes a wedding-photographer. As for the collaboration mentioned in Footnote 4 ("Where The REALLY Big Waves Live"), the only sources its being mentioned are sites somehow related to Fitzpatrick (and not the author!). As for the award winning: one should expect to find something on that, but you don't!

The only list of prizes or nominations are to be found are on his own AuthorsDen profile, claiming to have been nominated for Pulitzer in 2001, but apart from that: no neutral sources! An article resp. press-release claiming him to have been awarded numerous prizes has actually been published under the author's name "John P. Fitzpatrick" on one of them free-to-publish sites, where anyone is allowed to publish anything. The only award winning "John P. Fitzpatrick" I found was actually another "John P. Fitzpatrick" who too originates from New Jersey and won prices for his short-films. But he is far younger and in cinematography and not photoes ...

To sum it all up: the story is strange, product of AustralianThreston's sock-farm, connected to other articles that had been deleted (irrelevance, + sock-farm), given references do not proof the claims, alternative sources originate from "John P. Fitzpatrick" accounts, there is the danger that biographical data of other "John (P.) Fitzpatrick"s are mashed up in this, taking all that into account: data not convincing, person not relevant for encyclopedia. Consequence: deletion. LagondaDK (talk) 10:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 23:49, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Transfer of Burden

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

Tagged for notability since 2010, sounds like promotion of a term coined by projectsmart.co.uk Orphaned, nothing else references this Gbawden (talk) 08:27, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge into "Transaction cost". The article largely references transaction cost. The subject does appear to be a commonly used term (unlike transaction cost).--Rpclod (talk) 18:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is an extended dictionary definition but
Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Also this seems to be a neologism that hasn't been accepted by the construction economics community. Fiachra10003 (talk) 18:26, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:27, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Top o' the morning toastmasters

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

Non notable club of a notable organisation. There are 1000's of similar clubs, not everyone deserves an article. Reads like WP:Promotion Gbawden (talk) 07:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Just another toastmasters club.--Rpclod (talk) 18:53, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per
WP:NOTINHERITED (many small organizations inevitably have had one or two famous members). Bearian (talk) 20:11, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. One of the more impressive examples of puppetry I've seen in a while. Given the history of recreation, I'm going to salt this title, as several participants suggested. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:46, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vivek Kumar Pandey

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

The third (at least) in a series of articles created about an academic of no clear notability.

As the nominator of both Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Vivek Kumar Pandey (ending in delete on 30 January 2008) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vivek Kumar Pandey (ending in delete on 14 August 2011), and also the most prolix contributor to a deletion review for the latter (ending in Userified, but may not be suitable for there. No support for overturning deletion on 20 August 2011), it might be claimed that I'm a little too closely related to this subject to speedy the latest resuscitation (G4). And so I bring it to the attention of y'all.

The latest article doesn't strike me as demonstrating any more notability than its predecessors did. Because this matter has been rather a waste of time and may well continue to be, I propose deletion and salting. -- Hoary (talk) 00:27, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected

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

|username}}.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Hoary (talk) 00:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Hoary (talk) 00:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hoary (talk) 00:35, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt. Scholarly achievements totally inadequate for
WP:Prof [22]. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:50, 1 August 2014 (UTC).[reply
]

Delete and salt. Notability still not evident. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This should be the 3rd nomination. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]
- Response. Perhaps wrongheadedly, I supposed that the title would convey "2nd nomination of an article titled 'Vivek Kumar Pandey'". Titling it "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vivek Kumar Pandey (3rd nomination)" would I think have brought other complications. ¶ Incidentally, additionally salting "Dr. Vivek Kumar Pandey" (with and without the dot) could be a good idea. -- Hoary (talk) 10:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure you are right. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:19, 1 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]

If this ends with "delete", perhaps also delete User:Vivek Kumar Pandey, which is the draft for an article. -- Hoary (talk) 12:42, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update (by Hoary (talk)):
- August 1, 12:14: User:131.228.29.28 (Nokia, contributions) mangles the AfD notice
- August 1, 14:22: User:131.228.29.11 (Nokia, contributions) mangles the AfD notice
- August 1, 14:30: User:131.228.29.68 (Nokia, contributions) mangles the AfD notice
- August 2, 07:04: User:14.139.244.247 (Allahabad University, contributions) removes the AfD notice
- August 2, 10:14: User:14.139.244.243 (Allahabad University, contributions) removes the AfD notice
- August 3, 16:55: User:131.228.29.82 (Nokia, contributions) mangles the AfD notice
- August 4, 05:38: User:117.199.151.0 (India Allahabad Broadband Multiplay Project, contributions) removes the AfD notice
- August 5, 05:26: User:117.199.159.126 (India Allahabad Broadband Multiplay Project, contributions) removes the AfD notice
- August 6, 07:05: User:14.139.244.243 (Allahabad University, contributions) removes the AfD notice
- August 8, 09:36: User:14.139.244.243 (Allahabad University, contributions) removes the AfD notice
- August 8, 09:48: User:14.139.244.243 (Allahabad University, contributions) removes the AfD notice
Keep.As a academics, scientist,blogger,socail and philosophical thinker, wikipedian; and as Indian and world member he is notable and his five facts given in his blog "Vivekanand and Modern Tradition" is the best suited for the world community specially for Indian. These 5 facts in his hand writing in Hindi are as following:

मेरे द्वारा सिद्ध किया हुआ 5 प्रमुख तथ्य: १)हिन्द=जम्बूद्वीप =यूरेसिआ=यूरोप+एशिया= या कम से कम ईरान से सिंगापुर और कश्मीर से कन्याकुमारी और भारत=भारतवर्ष=भरत-खंड=अखंड भारत| २) इस्लाम समानांतर चलता है श्रीराम के और ईसाइयत सामानांतर चलती है श्रीकृष्ण के और जिस प्रकार श्रीराम बड़े हैं श्रीकृष्ण के उसी प्रकार इस्लाम बड़ा भाई है ईसाइयत का। 3) हिन्द भूमि(जम्बूद्वीप =यूरेसिआ=यूरोप+एशिया= या कम से कम ईरान से सिंगापुर और कश्मीर से कन्याकुमारी) न की केवल भारतवर्ष भूमि(भारतवर्ष=भरत-खंड=अखंड भारत) कई बार आर्यावर्त हो चुका है हस्तिनापुर राजा भरत के भारतवर्ष को आर्यावर्त घोषित करने के पहले तो आइये हम विश्व महासंघ को भी आर्यावर्त बनाये मतलब विश्व का हर नागरिक श्रेष्ठ(आर्य) हो। 4) श्रीराम के समानांतर इस्लाम और श्रीकृष्ण के समानांतर ईसाइयत संचालन ही सिद्ध करता है की तुम (इस्लाम और ईसाइयत) मेरे हो मतलब आप दोनों की उपज भी सनातन धर्मी ही है। यह अलग की गाय-गंगा-गीता-गौरी पर मतभेद रह गया है। Origin in the different climatic system may causes these differences. 5) इस संसार को चलाने के लिए सनातन हिन्दू संस्कृति के साथ ही साथ अन्य धर्म की शिक्षा-संस्कृति और परम्पराओं की भी जरूरत है भौगोलिक जलवायु खंड को ध्यान में रखते हुए पर इसका मतलब यह नहीं की ये सनातन संस्कृति की सीमा से परे हैं।

- - - - जय हिन्द(जम्बूद्वीप =यूरेसिआ=यूरोप+एशिया= या कम से कम ईरान से सिंगापुर और कश्मीर से कन्याकुमारी), जय भारत(भारतवर्ष=भरत-खंड=अखंड भारत), जय श्रीराम/कृष्ण।

In my view article of such person is notable one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.156.187 (talk) 13:32, 3 August 2014 (UTC) — 117.199.156.187 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

~~Keep~~. As a Cadet and Scientist he is position holder: He visited ICTP, Italy in August, 2004 as visiting scientist to join the course on climate dynamics and he is also position holder in 96 Uttar Pradesh Battalion (UP BN), Jaunpur and thus the Varanasi group of Indian NCC (Army Wing) in 2007. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.156.187 (talk) 13:49, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strike possibly

talk • contribs} 16:45, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply

Reverting strikeout. The suspicion that a commenter here might be a sockpuppet (of whom?) or have a conflict of interest is not a good reason to strike out the comment. (Indeed, certainty that a commenter has a conflict of interest wouldn't be good reason, and certain sockpuppetry might not be either.) -- Hoary (talk) 22:40, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Struck out second "keep". You only get to say "keep" (or "delete") once. -- Hoary (talk) 22:44, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination.
talk • contribs} 16:47, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment. It seems that the person using Nokia is forced to insert line breaks; it's these that screw up the AfD template, as well as much else besides. Attempting to use my own (non-Nokia) dumbphone for editing an article would have the same disastrous result. (I'd never consider using it for such a purpose.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:50, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article of notable person have multidimensional approach for benefit of humanity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.151.0 (talk) 06:00, 4 August 2014 (UTC) — 117.199.151.0 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. If above five facts given in Hindi is of Dr. Vivek Kumar Pandey and also the text in the article too make him National and International importance. Thus article of such notable person needed to preserve and keep on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.146.109 (talk) 06:43, 4 August 2014 (UTC) — 117.199.146.109 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

@

talk • contribs} 08:37, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply

Well,

Cutest Penguin, if you're not sure that one "!vote" (as they're called hereabouts) is by a sockpuppet of somebody who has already made a !vote, then don't strike it through. And even if you are sure, don't strike it through. This AfD will be closed by somebody who will be competent to judge the relative probabilities for him/herself. For this reason, I have again removed your strike-through. Please don't strike through again, unless you are very sure of what you are doing. Although if you were definitely in the right, then the rightness would be evident to another editor who could dispassionately make the same strike through, so again there'd no rush for you to do it. (When would you be in the right? If you had strong reason to believe that a comment was posted by the sockpuppet of a blocked or banned user, or if a comment were grossly offensive -- and I haven't seen any allegation of either.) -- Hoary (talk) 09:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply

https://getinfo.de/app/Evaluation-of-GODAS-Using-RAMA-Mooring-Observations/id/BLSE%3ARN348875332 http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01490419.2013.859642 http://scienceindex.com/stories/3948367/Evaluation_of_GODAS_Using_RAMA_Mooring_Observations_from_the_Indian_Ocean.html http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/Bibliography.html http://www.worldcat.org/title/vivek-kumar-pandey https://www.worldcat.org/title/evaluation-of-godas-using-rama-mooring-observations-from-the-indian-ocean/oclc/5423921429&referer=brief_results http://sciencealerts.com/stories/2834797/Evaluation_of_GODAS_Using_RAMA_Mooring_Observations_from_the_Indian_Ocean.html https://www.worldcat.org/title/evaluation-of-godas-using-rama-mooring-observations-from-the-indian-ocean/oclc/5542219542&referer=brief_results https://www.worldcat.org/title/itf-and-poleward-heat-transport-of-indian-ocean/oclc/360690557&referer=brief_results https://www.worldcat.org/title/itf-and-poleward-heat-transport-of-indian-ocean/oclc/4901293829&referer=brief_results http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01490410802265658?queryID=%24{resultBean.queryID} http://eprints.iisc.ernet.in/16171/ http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/tao/rama/ramapubs.html https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/climate-data/tropical-moored-buoy-system-tao-triton-pirata-rama-toga |14.139.244.243 (talk) 09:12, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I gone through his blog "Vivekanand and Modern Tradition", I found it very creative idea such as humanity originated from Prayag(
Hindu, Islam and Christianity are present with their potential; and Islam work parallel to Shri Ramaism and Christianity works parallel to Shri Krishnaism is his most important at least for Indian point of view as well as for world's point of view and his this outcome of the thoughts which he discussed in his blog very clearly makes him notable. Also as an academician and scientist he has good presentation. I therefore want his article on it in the same form because obviously he is notable. let us have a visit on his blog "Vivekanand and Modern Tradition"^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.214.132.235 (talk) 11:39, 4 August 2014 (UTC) \ — 117.214.132.235 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
]

^ "Vivekanand and Modern Tradition". Pandey's famous blog

Comment. As urged by 117.214.132.235 (contributions) elsewhere on this page, I visited "Pandey's famous blog". It's a mixture of English and Hindi. Unfortunately I cannot read the latter, but the former contains much Deep Thought, most (all?) of which is too Deep for me as well as inexplicably duplicated. This is a shortish example: in common with every entry I have glanced at, this hasn't attracted a single response -- which, for a "famous blog", is surprising. (Compare the degree of audience participation at, say, "Bike Snob NYC", whose more or less anonymous author is written up as a blogger in the NYT.) However, my mere impressions are of little importance, if any. If Pandey's blog is indeed of unusual significance, then where are the independent, published sources that say this? -- Hoary (talk) 22:33, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Islam who work parallel to Shri Ramaism is elder brother of Christianity who works parallel to Shri Krishnaism as Shri Ram is Elder than Shri Krishna in all means. This statement given by Dr. Pandey in his blog is very important for the world society. As a pesonal I see him on his facebook and found this blog view in one week at a particular date as a famous blog evidence is as follows(described by Dr. Pandey on 23 July on his faceebook account): My blog "Vivekanand and Modern Tradition" has more than 24500 page views from all over the world since August, 2013 to till date. Entry Pageviews in one week: United States/172, India/117, Germany/25, Australia/49, United Arab Emirates/ 2, Bahrain/1, France/1, Malaysia/1, Netherlands/1, Russia/1, Nepal/4, Bulgaria/1, Japan/1| I found him notable as a scientist, academician, social worker and philosopher and as a creative member of this world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.159.126 (talk) 05:10, 5 August 2014 (UTC) — 117.199.159.126 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- "Japan/1" was probably me. ¶ The question is not "Does some anonymous person here find him notable as a scientist, academician, social worker and philosopher and as a creative member of this world?" Instead, it's "What do independent, published, reliable sources say about him?" -- Hoary (talk) 09:26, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have some scientific works of Dr. Pandey which is important for mathematical modeling and reanalysis of Indonesian throughflow and Indian Ocean Dynamics as well as for the Climatic importance of the society from a newly born centre in year 2001 having less computational facility in comparison with the other International Centre and also important that his work is his standalone work rather than a big group. Dr. Pandey’s 5 recent papers on climate dynamics quoted on NCAR/UCAR Climate Data Guide and RAMA publications as publication from University of Allahabad^[1]^[2], his works on Indonesian throughflow and Indian Ocean Dynamics are quoted in Princeton Ocean Model publication in form of 4 publication^[3]and also one of the co-authored work “Mathematical Modelling of Atmosphere and Ocean Processes around Antarctica” as a Review paper edited by NCAOR, Goa, HeadLland Sada, Vasco-da-Gama, 2007 is also quoted as search by Pandey^[4]. I hope for a academician of 100% presence in the institution and having scientific attitude at place like University of Allahabad it is a good performance. We need having him on Wikipedia as a notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.244.247 (talk) 10:45, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this why you removed the AfD template? But whatever the reason for that, it wasn't as interesting an edit as this one, in which you added to User:Vivek Kumar Pandey a potted description of V K Pandey's editing of English-language Wikipedia -- a description that seems to describe your editing. If you are V K Pandey, simply write in the first person; if you're not, perhaps you can explain your editing of V K Pandey's user page and the curious resemblance between you and him. -- Hoary (talk) 12:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As we have following discussion from his web page: Pandey honored as the Proud of University of Allahabad as Proud of Allahabad University Alumni Assocaition since 2008^[5]"Pandey is the Proud Past of AU Alumni". Pandey is the proud of Allahabad University</ref>. Encyclopedia article in English have Dr Pandey's Unique Identifier-4780316397 of OCLC WorldCat: Pandey's Biography added in the OCLC WorldCat and MARQUIS WHO'S WHO DISTINGUISHED RESEARCH SCIENTIST in 2009^[6]^[7]^[8] and he is also I honored as TOP 100 Scientist 2010 by International Biographical Centre (IBC), Cambridge.^[9]. Keep the article14.139.244.243 (talk) 11:49, 5 August 2014 (UTC) — 14.139.244.243 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

^ “Dr. Pandey’s 5 recent papers on Climate Dynamics”. All the 5 papers based on reanalysis/evaluation of NCEP Global Ocean Data Assimilation System (GODAS) using Research Moored Array for African-Asian-Australian Monsoon Analysis and Prediction (RAMA) are quoted in NCAR/UCAR Climate Data Guide as comments
^ “Dr. Pandey’s 5 recent papers on Climate Dynamics”. Quoted as RAMA publications in 2010-11-13/14
^ “Pandey’s paper on Indonesian Throughflow using Princeton Ocean Model(POM) in the POM model publication list”. POM Model publication list search result of Pandey, Vivek Kumar
^ “Antarctica related mathematical modeling work”. Quoted on POM publication list
^ "Dr. Pandey is the Proud Past Alumni of Allahabad University Alumni Association". Dr. Pandey is Allahabad University Alumni Association's proud i.e. proud of University of Allahabad
^ http://www.worldcat.org/title/vivek-kumar-pandey "Dr. Pandey's Biograpy is included in encyclopedic biography"]. Dr. Pandey's biography added in OCLC WorlCat biography as the list say
^ [1]
^ "Vivek's biography in Marquis Whos Who online data". Pandey's brief biography in Marquis online data sets
^ [2]

- Possibly you misunderstand the nature of the "International Biographical Centre" and "Marquis Who's Who". -- Hoary (talk) 12:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and ignore the meatpuppets. Doesn't meet
WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY is OK, and that they deserve an article, are again demonstrated. Barney the barney barney (talk) 11:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
- To be fair, plenty of Americans seem to have the same entitled attitude. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is perhaps true David Eppstein (talk · contribs) - but American autobiographies do usually contain fairly well-written prose, even if it's just management speak about "providing solutions" and "community leadership" while not actually saying anything interesting. From India we usually get a single paragraph; 4-sentences, 800 words extolling all the virtues of the subject while using as many obscure words as possible from the thesaurus. Barney the barney barney (talk) 12:35, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Content of article, the demonstrating thoughts on the religious matters in his blog even remaining on a permanent faculty post in University of Allahabad and discussion as well indicates the article deserve to be an wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.158.48 (talk • contribs) — 117.199.158.48 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete and salt (including salting variations noted above). Doesn't even come close to meeting
WP:PROF, with a tiny h-index of 2 ([23]), and no notable academic achievements. -- 101.117.31.246 (talk) 14:24, 5 August 2014 (UTC) — 101.117.31.246 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
]

Delete and salt. WoS query "AUTHOR: (pandey vk) Refined by: ORGANIZATIONS-ENHANCED: (INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE IISC BANGLORE OR UNIVERSITY OF ALLAHABAD) Timespan: All years. Indexes: SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI" shows 3 papers with 1 citation among them. This person is far short of satisfying anything in
WP:PROF. Agricola44 (talk) 16:42, 5 August 2014 (UTC).[reply
]

Comment. I was fascinated to read above that Pandey honored as the Proud of University of Allahabad as Proud of Allahabad University Alumni Assocaition since 2008[5]"Pandey is the Proud Past of AU Alumni". Pandey is the proud of Allahabad University, with a reference reading "Dr. Pandey is the Proud Past Alumni of Allahabad University Alumni Association". Dr. Pandey is Allahabad University Alumni Association's proud i.e. proud of University of Allahabad. What on earth could it mean? ¶ The page is titled "Our Proud Past", and is a simple list, following "Famous alumni include:". Or rather, a simple list, of little encyclopedic value, aside from two entries, V K Pandey and
National Centre for Antarctic and Ocean Research, Prem Chand Pandey, Ram Chandra Shukla, Shankar Dayal Sharma, Surya Bahadur Thapa. Chances are high that several of these articles require attention (whether with scalpel or machete). I took a look at the last one: amazingly for an article about an ex–prime minister, this is virtually unsourced; yet the claim that He also Honored with “Proud Past Alumni" in the list of 42 members, from "Allahabad University Alumni Association", NCR, Ghaziabad (Greater Noida) Chapter 2007-2008 registered under society act 1860 with registration no. 407/2000 comes with links to three separate lists of "proud past alumni". -- Hoary (talk) 00:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Comments. I have following details about alumni award of Dr. Pandey: At present Allahabad University Alumni Association web site is
Allahabad at that time and even at this time too. His academics excellence should be searched in his blog which none can give here surviving in Allahabad as a common man and easily working in the University of Allahabad. How he given the good words for the social and religious matter from on which there is no comments from any caste and society. This is because every one finds him from all caste and religion belonging even from a Sanatam Brahmin family.14.139.244.243 (talk) 06:44, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

^ “UoA, Alumni”. Alumni web site
^ “Proud Past of UoA, Alumni Association/Famous Alumni”. Oldest web site of the Allahabad University Alumni Association
^ “Prous Past Alumni declaration web page capture”. Proud Past Alumni of Allahabad University Alumni Association
^ “June 2012 i.e. middle age web page of declaration of Proud Past Alumni of University of Allahabad”. Middle age web page of University of Allahabad Alumni web page
^ “Proud Past supporting web capture”. Proud Past of University of Allahabad alumni Association
^ “Proud Past of UoA, as on second web page PDF”. Allahabad University Alumni Association
^ [ https://www.academia.edu/3337883/Allahabad_University_Alumni_Association_AUAA_Ghziabad_chapter_registered_under_Society_Act_1860_with_Registration_No._407_2000_List_of_42_Proud_Past_Alumni_of_the_University_of_Allahabad_not_a_book_but_proof_of_honor_to_42th_personality_“Proud of Past Alumni list as a proof”]
^ “Proud Past of UoA, DOC”. Allahabad University Alumni Association
^ “Proud Past of UoA, PDF as on first web page started from 2000 i.e. oldest part 1”. Allahabad University Alumni Association
^ “Proud Past of UoA, PDF as on first web page started from 2000 i.e. oldest part 2 of part 1 in which Dr. Pandey's name included”. Allahabad University Alumni Association
^ ““Proud Past of UoA, DOC”. Allahabad University Alumni Association

Keep. If any registered Alumni Association keep the name of his Proud of Past Alumni/Famous Alumni on his web page since 2008 to 2012/13 and person is real alumni of the University and also all the details about that paticular alumni is correct and match with his carrier then such declared Proud Past alumnae Dr. Pandey is the real Proud Past and no one should go on exception of any ex-Prime-Minister of India(wrongly quoted). If the
Allahabad will travel a long way in the International society for a long time. I therefor want the article of this patent of Allahabad i.e. the article of Pandey on the wikipedia for ever so that people could track his activities in future which will be very beneficial for the Indian community and therefore the World community.117.241.104.19 (talk) 10:52, 6 August 2014 (UTC) — 117.241.104.19 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Hoary (talk) 12:51, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Hoary (talk) 12:51, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Hoary (talk) 12:51, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I find it extraordinarily difficult to understand the more favorable comments above, but gather that there's a claim that Pandey is notable as a religious thinker and blogger on matters pertaining to Hinduism, Islam and Christianity. If this is so, then people knowledgable about and dispassionately interested in one or more of these religions should be invited to comment. I've therefore transcluded this AfD in the DELSORT page of each of these three religions. I hope that the closing administrator allows time for comments by such people. -- Hoary (talk) 12:51, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Pandey has no scholarship whatsoever in this area: no published books in WorldCat and no research papers in any humanities journal. Consequently, it is ipso facto clear that he has no notability stemming from whatever knowledge he might have regarding religion. Agricola44 (talk) 13:20, 6 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]

I don't dispute some of your premisses, Agricola44. Moreover, I can derive no sense from either (A) what little I've glanced at of his writing in English about religion on his blog or (B) the praise for this as presented above. But I'm aware that much (most?) writing about religion makes no sense to me (or/so is deeply soporific). Religious significance (as I very hazily understand it) isn't limited to academic theology. The article "Interfaith dialogue" suggests that, from India, one Morari Bapu is important. The (very dodgy looking) article on the latter doesn't hint that he has what would normally be called scholarship, any published books in WorldCat or any research papers in any humanities journal. (Rather, he gives "9 day-long sermons".) So I'd be interested to see what those people who, unlike me, can make sense of religion would dispassionately say about religious significance (if any) here. -- Hoary (talk) 23:32, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article created on the day before birth day of Dr. Pandey (DOB:01-08-1976) who given important facts1) that
Indian Institute of Science Bangalore, Banaras Hindu University and University of Allahabad where is good existence of all the religions. I suggest to keep him here.117.199.150.36 (talk) 06:38, 7 August 2014 (UTC) — 117.199.150.36 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
]

Comment. I have some of the references of his publications present on Worldcat also his own article on Worldcat library and other internatinal forum:

Comment: he may have written papers, but Google Scholar shows that virtually nobody is taking any notice -- he has an h-index of only 2 (the lowest I've ever seen when considering
WP:FRINGE applies too. -- 101.117.59.207 (talk) 09:23, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
- Comment. We read above (in a contribution of this person in Allahabad) that Pandey given important facts1) that Islam works parallel to Shri Ramaism and Christianity works parallel to Shri Krishnaims [sic] and as Shri Ram is elder than Shri Krishna therefore Islam is elder than Christianity. Of course what really matters is the degree to which independent, published, reliable sources say that Pandey gave (or given) important facts. Perhaps an IP can provide links. In the meantime, though: This seems Extremely Deep Thought. The reasoning seems to be: "If (i) x "works parallel to" belief in a, (ii) y "works parallel to" belief in b, (iii) a is older than b, then x is older than y. ¶ According to some encyclopedia I found on the web, Islam is very roughly six hundred years younger than Christianity. I take the IP's word for the claim that "Islam works parallel to Shri Ramaism and Christianity works parallel to Shri [Krishnaism]". I'm not familiar with "work parallel to" in a formalism; I can't think what it means other than "is parallel to". If Islam is parallel to Ramaism and Christianity is parallel to Krishnaism, then (as "p is parallel to q" is commutative) Ramaism is parallel to Islam and Krishnaism. And by the IP's account of Pandey's logic, Ramaism is therefore younger than Krishnaism. -- Hoary (talk) 13:16, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. I am very agree with the Dr. Pandey's blog's every statement and after realization in deep I also found each religion meets to Sanatan Hindu and also it is similar in some extent to Swami
Vivekananda. But now Dr. Pandey completed it being a Sanatan/eternal Brahmin while Swami Vivekanand was not a perfect Brahmin but only a Rajaswa Brahmin/Kayashth of Bengali Hindu family and pupil of Swami Ramakrishna Paramhans who belong from perfect Brahmin family. That is why some thing was missing with him due to fact of two bodies view differences although it was a good effort of Swami ji(conversation converted in some extent to lag in exact meaning). His brief biography on Worldcat library significant of what? ^[1]14.139.244.247 (talk) 10:26, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

^ "Dr. Pandey's biography in Worldcat Library". Worldcat library have Dr. Pandey's biography

Comments. Pandey In his blog said not only all religion meets to Sanatan Hindu but also the whole world humanity, not only Hindu and
Allahabad by Saptarshi originated by Trimurti and not a single body created by Amoeba but only Amoeba born by only Amoeba. The God created every creature in its difference way and genetically and also this universe too.14.139.244.243 (talk) 10:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment. Pandey's brief biography as in Worldcat from original source(Who):http://www.academia.edu/6801044/Encyclopedia_article_English_-_My_Unique_Identifier-4780316397_of_OCLC_WorldCat_My_Biography_added_in_the_OCLC_WorldCat_and_MARQUIS_WHOS_WHO_DISTINGUISHED_RESEARCH_SCIENTIST_in_2009_when_I_was_at_IISc_Bangalore#1 |14.139.244.247 (talk) 11:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Even with so many SPA's editing it, they haven't been able to add any notability to the article. Just an average over-qualified Indian. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:39, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As per our best knowledge, belief and faith in the religion Dr. Pandey's view on his blog is to make a gather the scattered world indeed and I found him most notable person of the world in these days of disturbed world. He is good academician or bad it is not matter here but as I know from the different sources that he was not able to get the time to make himself a very best scientist and academician but he was overladed with the responsibilities which was based on the behaviour and cooperation of others and whose view was also different with him but finaly he succeed due to his great resistance power and personality. Now the person and student will take benefit of his aim to become a good scientist and academician fore ever. He was pillar of that work which gives immense pleasure to the humanity and now it is over. Therefore I need his article on wikipedia and thanks in advance for keep him here.14.139.244.243 (talk) 11:45, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is clear from debate that article on Pandey is notable as per his over all noble personalty. We have a better future under his guidance and a better academic and scientist hidden in him but he could not get to perform on the platform of UoA because of the international ship which he was leading for make a safe future of world on that ship others have different view and goal against him. I expect that in all respect pandey's article on wikipedia is most needful and extraordinary as looks from his blog. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.89.128.63 (talk • contribs) — 59.89.128.63 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
‘‘‘Keep’’’. About the matter in his blog and benefit to the World community regarding religious and philosophical view and athentification and make perfect the work of Swami
Murali Manohar Joshi and Professor Srivastava Ji for the University of Allahabad, India and thus for the World community.27.124.24.6 (talk) 14:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC) — 27.124.24.6 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
]

^ “Vivekanand and Modern Tradition”. Blog of Dr. Vivek Kumar Pandey

Delete and Salt. Claims are thicker and no more believable in the discussion above than in the article. In the article, for instance, note 6 pertains to a member on editorial board, not an editor's role, and definitely not and editor-in-chief's. Massively short of
WP:GNG from what I can tell.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 16:36, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment. A bit of background, for those it may interest. Though there aren't so many links to the article now, V K Pandey has at times popped up here and there in WP. More interesting among them: AfD/Prem Chand Pandey, Prem Chand Pandey (see the caption "Dr. P C Pandey enjoying the marriage ceremony..."), Ramapur. Additionally: Azamgarh, Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University, Banaras Hindu University, Allahabad University. -- Hoary (talk) 23:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
’’’Comment’’’. Web page on academia of dr. Pandey says something more as: He is Fellow, Society of Earth Scientists ^{National Centre for Antarctic and Ocean Research/Ministry of Earth Sciences, Govt. of India of cost approximately one Crore Rupees since 2012.Spallahabad (talk) 07:40, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]}

^ “Membership No. F/347”. (PDF) Society of Earth Scientist we page have record of the Fellow of Dr. Vivek Kumar Pandey
^ “Pandey is life member of International Academy of Physical Sciences in Academy membership no. N14231”. Pandey life member of IAPS
^ “IMS Directory of Life member tag have membership no. 1034 for Dr. Vivek Kumar Pandey”. Indian meteorological Society web Site have life membership record of Dr. Vivek Kumar Pandey

Delete and salt. Does not show any notability as concerns Wikipedia, and far from it, it reads like a CV for a job application. I have never seen a Wikipedia article scrape the barrel so definitively: "high marks in High School examination"; "his blog view page more than 25000 within one year"; "1st prize in science quize". And this reads like it was included so as to pander to the government or an employer who might be reading the article rather than a general reader: "Moderate thoughts of Nationalism and Internationalism but he involves himself in such activities in his own personal routine time after performing his daily academic and scientific responsibilities." -Lopifalko (talk)
Comment. As per actual date of birth he born on 11:11( November 11):1975 i.e. on the National Education Day (India). Please tell me how many paper published by Shri
Allahabad at that particular time), which was given to solve to his family(own and maternal uncle's) in that case he fulfil this with his physical presence(not from outside) means such work one do from out side in general case(the work was to save the humanity of the world generated by Saptarshi of Prayag/Allahabad not only a foundation of a centre of university and also to found a substitute of the basic building block of the society from Allahabad who will take place of the old age Brahma, Vishnu and Mahesh present in the humanity in the India and world and in more extent that is over).14.139.244.243 (talk) 10:44, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Hello to you at Allahabad University! Sorry, but gods and numerology fail to excite me. Instead let's talk about the number three. Just today, you deleted the AfD template from the article once, twice, thrice. Why is this? Do you find "Please do not remove or change this AfD message until the issue is settled" hard to understand? -- Hoary (talk) 13:25, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- This is a horrible article. It does not help that so many "friends and supporters" seem to be intervening. The question is ultimately whether the subject's academic publications are imnportant enough to meet
WP:ACADEMIC. Running a blog certainly does not amount to that, nor (unless he is supposed to be a theologian) should anything related to Hindu or other gods. If he has done (and published in peer-reviewed jounrals) important academic work that work needs to be properly described and cited. If not, the article should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterkingiron (talk • contribs
)

Given to me no reasonable sources. Delete I want to see this, horrible article that seems, victim of bable fish it is, Yoda me told.
talk) 15:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. After all the article is not less degree notable than any most important article on the Wikipedia. There is many aspects which have any source on the web page of the internet as once ability can be judge by a personal meet with him. I have a look on Dr. Pandey and his personalities personally and socially from near and there and found unique on this earth. I just say that on the over all debates that it is Dr. Pandey who is more important than the his article on this Wikipedia. Keep it fore ever to track his life graph which will be going to rise very fast in near future on the world map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.153.251 (talk) 16:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC) — 117.199.153.251 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. Article is notable one and am agree with the just above request to keep. Pandey is the more over important and notable than he linked on any web page. We should have his article for future perspective as the IP argued about Dr. Pandey.117.199.154.35 (talk) 11:16, 9 August 2014 (UTC) — 117.199.154.35 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (converse) @ 12:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The New Press (imprint)

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

Apparently non-notable (though it's almost impossible to tell with such a commonplace name). Appears to fail

WP:CORP. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply

Kmccook responds: The New Press was founded in 1992. It has produced major works. See this year's books here: https://www.thenewpress.com/books/current-season The editorial board is respected and made up of many notable writers. Its books have won awards such as:

George Wittenborn Memorial Award from the Art Libraries Society of America;
Lincoln Prize in Civil War History
International Center of Photography Infinity Award for Writing
American Library Association James Madison Award.

It is not a vanity press. It is an activist press that publishes important books on critical issues such as Mass Incarceration on Trial by Jonathan Simon, 2014. Kmccook (talk) 00:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No, it's not almost impossible to tell, it's just harder to tell than it is for a publisher called "Hamish Hamilton" or "Phaidon" or whatever. For example, googling "the new press" -leveson -greenslade site:theguardian.com brings a review of a notable book published by NP, an obituary of its founder, and more. The obituary prompts me to add "Schiffrin" to the mix; unsurprisingly, googling "the new press" schiffrin site:nytimes.com brings a promising selection of sources. ¶ Incidentally, after this AfD has run its course and the article given a new lease of life, it should be moved to "The New Press". -- Hoary (talk) 00:55, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Publisher of much renown, widely regarded for innovation in its field, has published numerous notable authors and notable award winning works. Widely referenced from a good number of broadsheet newspapers. There is nothing not to like here. -Lopifalko (talk)

Keep Agree with above. --
C 04:34, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per Kmccook, Hoary & Lopifalko. Notable publisher of numerous notable authors & works. Also agree w/ Hoary - should be renamed The New Press, as no disambiguation in the title is necessary.--JayJasper (talk) 17:53, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:09, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GetAuto

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

Subject does not seem to meet

WP:RS. 2 of the sources are from the subject. A search for sources did not turn up anything aside from more rehashed press releases, advertisements, or promotional websites. TLSuda (talk) 00:25, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply