Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 December 11

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 00:15, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Azimuth, Delaware (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, probably non-existent place. This was dePRODded because the name appears in Google Maps, but no other confirmation can be found. Google Maps alone would not be enough to satisfy

• Delete per other AfDs. Non-verifiable, likely hoax.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Just like Midzemuthleiy, it fails
  WP:NGEO. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 12 December 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 00:14, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wilayat Hama (ISIL) (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, self-proclaimed admin division ukexpat (talk) 20:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• delete one source is a blog, the other doesnt even mention the subject(belated signature) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete IF there is info out there worth talking about, it can be put in ISIL territorial claims where it belongs. These articles are just lending legitimacy to a terrorist groups claims of starting a government. Also if you take out the ISIL part and search the article name you only get this article referring to this topic = not notable. Legacypac (talk) 04:39, 16 December 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.

Gender Advertisements (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)

Book report, possibly created as a school project. No evidence of notability provided — the sources cited appear to consist of blogs or images. ~

• Delete per nominator. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:58, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Sadly, no evidence of notability.
  talk) 21:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment: I am finding some evidence of notability in book mentions like this one, and in academic journals like this one and this one. At the very least the author's study as a whole has been the focus of various papers like this one, although I'm listing that one because it kind of seems like parts of the article may have been paraphrased from this paper. Here are some other sources: ([5], [6], [7], [8], [9]) Basically it does look like the work is notable, although I would probably argue for an article about Goffman's study concepts as opposed to just the book itself. The book could probably pass notability guidelines but we'd likely end up making an article that would be about the study as a whole either way. However the issue here is that this article is pretty much one person's student paper and would require an almost complete re-write to make it fit the policies on NPOV and take out all of the original research.
  (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:44, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. I notice that there are two articles, one on the basic concept and one on the book. The book could conceivably merit its own article- I was able to find where Goffman's work on the subject (which always refers back to this book as the example of said work) is considered to be particularly noteworthy and groundbreaking. However at the same time, the two articles are largely the same as one another and I do note that the general article does suffer from some original research and tone issues- although this is due to other editors and may be the reason why the students in this case (they refer to themselves as such) thought that the previous article's state would be permissable on Wikipedia. I've left a note on the talk page and put a huge emphasis on them sending their teacher to the page for educators. I kind of can't help but feel bad for students in situations like this: they were pretty much let loose onto Wikipedia with what appears to be no overview of Wikipedia's editing policies(the sourcing shows fairly good proof of this) or the differences between papers and encyclopedia articles and they're the ones experiencing the sharp learning curve. In any case, I did find enough to where the book would pass notability guidelines, although this may be somewhat redundant to the general article. The only thing that I would say argues for the book to have its separate article is that it did influence other notable people and this section would not fit well into the general article as a whole. I will ask on the applicable WikiProjects for help fleshing out the page with proper sourcing and all.
  (｡◕‿◕｡) 00:55, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 12 December 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--Ymblanter (talk) 09:14, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

No indication of notability (certainly nothing supported by good sources) and no significant independent coverage. Merely heading a wrestling organization is not grounds for claiming notability.Mdtemp (talk) 17:43, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 18:04, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – He is one one of the richest businessmen in Uzbekistan and influential in the sports world. Wrestling is big in Central Asia. He also owns the country's dominant team in soccer, the most popular sport. From the viewpoint of Uzbekistan, seems to be a notable person. – Margin1522 (talk) 12:16, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Salim Abduvaliev is very influential in Uzbekistan. If you know russian or uzbek, just google his name and you will see. --
  (talk) 18:51, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Since secondary coverage does not have to be in English to make someone notable on English Wikipedia.--TMD Talk Page. 18:21, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The article has two references one of which is a wiki (same problem with referencing wikipedia) and the other is an online feature magazine. If the person is that notable there should be far more out there. Need more and better for
  WP:GNG to be met.Peter Rehse (talk) 18:41, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment Added some references --
  (talk) 19:14, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep I found several references that refer to him as a Uzbek crime boss. There's enough coverage to meet
  WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 19:25, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - User:Mdtemp did you notify article creator? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I wasn't notified. --
    (talk) 13:08, 19 December 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 07:20, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Inn Hotel and Convention Centre - Winnipeg (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)

Advertisement, with no indication of the notability of this particular hotel. Prod removed. —Swpb^talk 17:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Graham (talk) 19:25, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All references are commercial sites promoting the centre. Not encyclopedic. LaMona (talk) 23:54, 16 December 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.

Japanese water (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)

Originally PROD'd as essay/original research with one supporting PROD and a second more stinging PROD. PROD was removed by author with no improvements. I agree with the sentiments. Non-coherent un-encyclopedic article. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:25, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I get the impression that this is a machine-translated version of an article at the Japanese Wikipedia. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 01:26, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Rambling
  original research, and not really appropriate as an encyclopedia article. I'm sensing a pattern here with new articles created by the same enthusiastic editor, a large number of which have either already been deleted or are up for deletion, and I see that the editor has been briefly blocked once for repeatedly creating new articles without paying more attention to the basic Wikipedia guidelines. --DAJF (talk) 03:07, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Agreed. I noted this at
  Mudslides in Japan is hanging on for now, but that's mostly because no one has bothered to put it up for deletion as suggested at User talk:Dekimasu#Mudslide in Japan. Dekimasuよ! 03:33, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete A mish-mash of confused English practice. Since almost all the references are in Japanese, I followed one -- on the utterly unbelievable claim that Japan "imports" (?!) 60% of its water (whatever that could possibly mean). It turns out that the claim on the Japanese environment ministry's website is that Japan is only self-sufficient for 40% of its food in calorie terms, and thus the 60% of "virtual water" used to grow this food is "imported". So this bit is wrong, basically. I expect the rest is similar. Imaginatorium (talk) 03:50, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (
  ^Notify_Online 21:46, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per
  WP:NOTESSAY. –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:48, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per
  talk 01:26, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• With respect to Hasirpad's suspicion and the two untranslated Related Pages wikilinks, I checked the respective What Links Here on jawp ja:特別:リンク元/自然農法 (Natural farming) and ja:特別:リンク元/有機農業 (Organic farming), giving close attention to 水 (water). Only ja:冬期湛水 (Winter waterlogging) and ja:炭酸水素ナトリウム (Sodium bicarbonate, Japanese calls hydrogen "water element") are found. It might be that jawp used to have such a counterpart but have been deleted.

Anyway delete Sourced parts might possibly be salvaged to their separate topics, but together at this state is a

WP:NOTESSAY per above. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 12:51, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete - my seconding of the proposed deletion is all I have to add. Bearian (talk) 18:17, 17 December 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: G5. Created by an obvious sockpuppet of blocked user User:Hayatgm. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:35, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Delete - spam for non-notable genre. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:27, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per lack of notability. Obvious promotional article.
  talk) 21:40, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per
  WP:RS. Faizan 17:12, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• This article should not be deleted because this article contains much information about the mentioned book, which is not available in any where.Ishtiaq Naqi

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.

• Transwiki I think it is better if we don't delete it but move it to
  Jim Carter 11:19, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I'm afraid I don't really have an opinion about moving it to another Foundation site. My main concern is that although it was probably pasted to Wikipedia in good faith, we are definitely not the venue for publishing original research or homework assignments. Add to that that the only real research the author did was to look for sources to use in his synthesis. If I were the prof assessing it I would expect more genuine research. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:50, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Kudpung: Are you aware that original research is allowed on Wikiversity? This sort of stuffs are welcomed at Wikiversity. So, yes, we can't keep it here but we can keep it there. What you think? Jim Carter (from public cyber) 17:48, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jim, as I said above, I have absolutely no opinion about where else this article could be used. My single concern is that it does not belong on en.Wiki. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:44, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about this for a while. Yes, we can't keep it here per

WP:NOTESSAY. So I support delete if not transwiki. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 12:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete since this is, indeed, an essay. Drmies (talk) 03:02, 15 December 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.

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

)

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

Clearly against

• Delete Per
  WP:NOTNEO: To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term. --AmritasyaPutra^T 10:47, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep This is a ridiculous AfD that should be rejected without any consideration. The term "saffron terror" produces about 50,000 google hits [15] and "hindutva terror", which is a synonym, produces 26,000 [16]. The notability of the subject is not in doubt. There is a 300 page book on the subject, cited in the Bibliography of
  saffron terror and reviewed in an academic journal [17], and another book by Christophe Jaffrelot, a world-leading authority on Hindu nationalism, is being written as we speak: [18]. The nominator and his friends are engaged in a cover-up operation as far as I can see. Apparently, they do not want Hindu acts of terrorism brought to light. From the academic review of the book, we note: "For anyone who has not been following the news about Hindutva terrorist attacks, the sheer number and wide geographical distribution of these attacks is astonishing, and indicates, as the author suggests, a turn from communal pogroms to terror attacks as the favoured strategy for “the reactionary political project of building fascism”. It is apparent that at least in the 21st century, Hindutva terror has been far more active in India than Islamist terror." Wikipedia should not bend to fascism and terrorism. Kautilya3 (talk) 11:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Shouldn't we wait for Christophe to complete his book? The other book is published by Pharos, check their website and catalogue; they have zero academic record and their specialization is 'Islamic Books' not history. The writer, Ghatade is an engineer by training and a political activist and amateur journalist; there are zero articles published in TOI or The Hindu (national dailies) by him. He is not a historian or academician. --AmritasyaPutra^T 11:16, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One would naturally expect an 'Islamic' publisher to publish books about terrorism that targets Muslims. That doesn't automatically make them "unreliable." Subhash Gatade has published in Economic and Political Weekly, a scholarly journal, on a wide range of topics: [19]. The cited book has been reviewed in the journal as well, as I mentioned previously. Kautilya3 (talk) 12:32, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• All Jaffrelot has written in his life is about anti Hindu nationalism including while during his studies. So I would not count him as
  WP:WINAD. Majority of scholars define these acts as riots and not terrorism. Riots are riots, terrorism is terrorism. As far as fascism is concerned, it requires an Authoritarian system - one that is certainly not being supported by the said groups. Common Law (supported by these groups), religious liberty (supported by these groups) is not a sign of fascism. Of course, by having common law for every citizen in the country is somehow fascism, I am afraid that most western coutries including US and Euro countries are the same.--Sdmarathe (talk) 03:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

This is clearly nonsense. Academic freedom means that scholars are free to study whatever subjects interest them. A cursory look at the Christophe Jaffrelot page indicates that his interests are wider than Hindu nationalism. He has also written about Pakistan politics and caste-based politics. Kautilya3 (talk) 09:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Please keep your emotions at check , divide the article from your emotional attachments to it, as
  WP:NOTNEO or make it famous. again note that the books stated by you "Godse's Children: Hindutva Terror in India by Subhash Gatade " itself looks like a stitched work of many historical events, note that the book is released on 2011. when Gandhi was killed nowhere was it called hindu terror during the period of the event, if some author calls it hindu terror after 60 years of the event in one of his book and not even notable enough will not give due weight to in wikipedia. and doubt on its notability except for use in wikipedia reference. Shrikanthv (talk) 11:45, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I believe "emotions" are exactly what brought you here. In this edit [20], you said that a key sentence in the lead "demeans organisations." In this comment on the talk page [21], you said that the lead suggests that "individuals with hindu religion belief" are being accused. So, you want your favourite organisations to look good and you want hindu religion to look good. You want this article gone so that you can continue your denial. So, this is a politically motivated AfD. It is not done in the best interests of Wikipedia. Kautilya3 (talk) 23:36, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Kautilya3, you were warned on your talk page about personal attacks by another editor for mindless accusations here. Be
  civil and discuss content, take your complaints to ANI if you mean it. --AmritasyaPutra^T 01:52, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete - Per
  Wikipedia:GOSSIP, we should not promote any kind of political propaganda. The "alleged" speculations have no weight. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:37, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Both of these are in widespread use as RS across the 'pedia. More can be provided if necessary; but last I checked, two sources satisfied the criteria for "multiple." This meets GNG very comfortably. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Please note both the sources (above mentioned) are amounting to
  WP:OPINION and are from magazine and a newpaper also themselves refering to newsarticle which are again opinions of others Shrikanthv (talk) 07:09, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Nonsense; EPW is an excellent academic journal, and Frontline is non-academic but certainly has rigourous editorial oversight. What part of "reliable and secondary" do they not satisfy? Besides, you seem to be equating "research" with "opinion," which is ridiculous. Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have not questioned the degree of excellence of EPW journal , the "research" in the general is on the "opinons" of the people and am not equating a research to a opinion Shrikanthv (talk) 08:41, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Accurately and neutrally describing the term is not promoting political propaganda. The term has been described in newspapers and books. [22], [23] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• NeilN you are probably correct, what you think about the circumstances that have lead this AFD? Bladesmulti (talk) 14:36, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @
  here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:58, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Yes, that is probably the case. It needs improvement but not in the way of here-is-saffron-terror(ists)-list-according-to-wiki-editors. --AmritasyaPutra^T 15:43, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• NeilN pecular mention in [24] from 350 odd pages it is mentioned ones and that too the book is still a new print and [25] the book just only uses the word without any description ones! out of again 350 odd pages, I do not believe this can be used to make the word ready for a dictonary Shrikanthv (talk) 07:03, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "Ready for a dictionary" is not part of
  WP:NEO. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• The word dictionary was used in indirect meaning suggesting it (saffron terror) has very little mention in the sources qouted and nothing to do with dictionary use Shrikanthv (talk) 08:41, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The term is used by mainstream newspaper and publications. There are sufficient number of citations in the article to support that. And the term has been, it seems, in use at least since 2002. Kautilya3 has discussed the notability in detail in his keep voting above.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment No one is questioning the notability here (at leat not me), this AFD should discuss the issues like
  WP:NOTDIC -sarvajna (talk) 17:27, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete Per
  WP:NOTNEO: This is clearly created for its shock value and does not contribute much academically as it appears to be just a collection of references from other pages and few reliable sources. Some in list have actually been referred by international experts to opposite conclusions than mentioned in the article. This article hence appears nothing more than a list of alleged acts and not really a legitimate article. The term itself has been coined by Chidambaram and Sharad Pawar as a political ploy to defame Hindu nationalism and Hindutva political parties. Voting for Deletion of this article as this seems to only promote the creation of Congress party's appeasement politics for political gains --Sdmarathe (talk) 09:21, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

This user has been cavnassed. [26]Kautilya3 (talk) 11:36, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heck No. I have commented and have followed this page when I was reading other related pages. Do you not even care to look at talk page? Should I level the same charge when you and AsceticRose came out of nowhere when I was being edit warred by vanamonde? Please stop making such baseless accusations.--Sdmarathe (talk) 23:42, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that the nominator has canvassed you is a fact. If you would have come here of your own accord, you may simply say so. Kautilya3 (talk) 00:00, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. despite reading the comments and links to talk page edits, you do not want to believe. So apparently simply saying so was not enough. --Sdmarathe (talk) 00:25, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI if need be as little will be done here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:00, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

He's not. He's just notified since he was heavily involved with this page. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:40, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to show us where he was involved? Kautilya3 (talk) 12:04, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confused with a number of other political party and pages where terrorism was a subject. Although he has still edited a few related pages like Shiv Sena, Naroda Patiya massacre and more. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:12, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sdmarathe had commented on the article talk page discussion related to this AfD before Shrikanthv posted a neutral one line for participation on his talk page and India Notice board. By your standard, this edit is also canvassing, no? But why look there because he is in your support? --AmritasyaPutra^T 12:24, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sitush has deliberately stayed away from this AfD. To drag him in here is in bad taste. Do you realize you are being too noisy in here? Why don't you relax and let people do their thinking? Kautilya3 (talk) 12:58, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

pot? --AmritasyaPutra^T 13:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep -BECAUSE subject simply meets the
  Anupmehra -Let's talk! 11:13, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete For all the reasons given above.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 05:30, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Not sure I'm seeing the nom's logic here. The topic is valid and should be included in the encyclopedia. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:31, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Unaffiliated editor. The title 'Saffron terrorism' fails the Neo requirements (until a secondary source spends a page on a neologism then it isn't notable--no secondary source does, so...). But 'Hindu Terrorism' is certainly a notable topic. The Matusitz book (that is the most substantive secondary source for 'Saffron Terrorism') uses that as the section heading and there are thousands of secondary sources on that particular substantiation. I think the good faith opinions on both sides can meet in the middle for the article being titled 'Hindu Terrorism' (which already redirects here) which is certainly notable and less problematic than 'Saffron Terrorism'. Peace. AbstractIllusions (talk) 16:32, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename at least in the short term per AbstractIllusions above. John Carter (talk) 17:31, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I cannot see any articles about the topic in scholarly sources. There are not even sources that say something like "it is a term used by x to describe y", All we have are scattered references to use of the term and we do not know if all the speakers are referring to the same thing. And do not rename or save as a re-direct. TFD (talk) 17:53, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The term saffron terror had only been started by congress in early 2000s for political gains and latched on by biased sources. What has been labeled the so called terror groups are only labeled for political and religious gains. No reliable scholarly source that is

WP:NPOV had used the terrorist adjective to the groups. They have however used The term right wing Hindu nationalist that include fringe rogue elements. Such elements exist in all Right or Left wing groups or parties in India (case in point Akbar Owaisi in AIMIM - who has incited crowds by defaming Hindu Gods and threatened repeatedly against the entire country). This article at its very least should mention that it's an allegedly political term and elaborate on that if so desired. this should not be a laundry list of alleged attacks some of which are not even referred to as terrorist acts and some are known linked to other groups. It only adds to sensationalizing the term --Sdmarathe (talk) 00:25, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

The article shows that the term "saffron terror" comes from journalistic sources. Neither of the cited articles mention any political origins for the term. If you want to claim that the term was political, you need to substantiate it by providing political sources that predate the journalistic sources. Do you have any? Kautilya3 (talk) 12:13, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I have moved one of the comment to talk page. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:36, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There is no reason as to why this page must be deleted. I do not think that it should even be renamed because firstly, Saffron is a colour, it is neither an ideology, nor a religion. It is a colour which happened to have a religious or ideological significance. Saffron terror was merely chosen for its non-religious nature and to identify an alleged terror oraganisation and activities of some saffron clad people. They may or may not be Hindu, they may or may not be Hindutva ideologues. They might as well be Buddhists. I would really want it to be renamed as Hindu terrorism, but keeping in mind the sensitivity, required neutral viewpoint of this issue and the widespread use and familiarity of the word, the word Saffron should stay.

Hindus do not have a monopoly of the term Saffron, Hindu, Hindutva just like the way Muslims do not have the monopoly over the term Jihad and Islam. It can be used in anyway one feels like for they are just words. The media used the phrase

This article has the potential to be better through addition and citation of more reliable sources, proper editing and adding of pictures. This article can certainly not be made better through deletion.Thinkmaths (talk) 16:34, 14 December 2014 (UTC) — Thinkmaths (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• comment You perhaps mention the exact problem with the article as you find "saffron" not a monopoly with Hinduism, which i have noted in the nomination is leading to synthesis and leaves a large open field for misinterpretation and the information you stated that "some media" used this word "saffron terror" is also right as stated by me in nomination this is leading to
  WP:NOTNEO neologism does not give right to the word "saffron terrorism " be made famous as it lacks secondary sources, I do not understand eventhough your analysis is correct you are putting this under keep ? . and this article has nothing to do with Islamic terrorism nor Hinduism vs Islam, please keep the topic away from the article as I do also see that your are mentioning that "we call it ...." .who are the we ? Shrikanthv (talk) 06:22, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• reply @
  Saffron terror is not a neologism because the phrase is being used for more than 12 years now and is quite a popular word. I would like to divert this discussion to the talk page so, ping me in the talk page if you wish to continue.Thinkmaths (talk) 12:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep, or rename to "Hindu terrorism", since this is a real and important phenomenon, and both terms are used by scholarly sources (links provided above by others, but a cursory look at google books or google scholar will demonstrate as much). -Darouet (talk) 17:30, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with religion, the acts are not driven by religious zeal but allegedly driven by ideological zeal. -sarvajna (talk) 07:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just like TFD has said on talk(page) of this AFD, if there is any terror, then why it hasn't been added to Terrorism in India? There is no mention of this new term. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blades, that argument is totally irrelevant, and you know it. If the Terrorism in India page doesn't have it, then put it in. Vanamonde93 (talk) 08:10, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93:@Bladesmulti:No problem, I have added it now.Thinkmaths (talk) 08:34, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We add only convictions not just a few allegations. Thinkmath's recent change on Terrorism in India is probably enough for recognizing any Saffron terror, a whole page is undue weight. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:40, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@

Saffron terror deals with this in detail by explaining the origin, the usage and its familiarity in the public.Thinkmaths (talk) 09:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Conviction is not same as the small list few allegations. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bladesmulti: What about the list of terrorists that was released by the Home Ministry after Shinde's Saffron terror remark, now they were not allegations, were they? How else then the Home Ministry can reveal their names. They were either convicted or absconding. Now you would say, the list had too few names.Thinkmaths (talk) 14:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have the report? Bladesmulti (talk) 14:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The question is not about who created this term? Even if Congress party had created this phrase, it is hardly a reason for the deletion of this article. However I can make one observation from the article, the phrase was widely used during the regime of one political party. None of the events mentioned in the article have reached their conclusion, the whole article seems to be some list of allegations and there is no detailed explanation in place on wikipedia even after so many years after the article creation. It can be because the editors did not work on the article or because there is nothing much to cover. A lot of editors here are confused between terrorism, communal violence and single handed assassinations. This phrase is a Neo, as mentioned at
  serious lack of competence. -sarvajna (talk) 10:15, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep Just because the terror incidents by Saffron terrorists are less now, this article cannot be deleted. All the incidents mentioned in the article and few other incidents (a simple Google search will help) are a clear outcome of Saffron Terrorism. Multiple attempts haave been made to delete this article. But it has survived. Go through the Talk page and see why earlier attempts to delete this article were not successful. Those reasons are still applicable. I am not sure why this article is being targetted so many times for deletion. I suggest the afd tag be removed from this article and more details are added to this page like any other Terror page. Wasif (talk) 15:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Previously only one attempt was made to delete this article, the result was "no consensus". I think you did not even cared to do your homework before making this comment. Google search will not help, get the source. -sarvajna (talk) 15:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - To me this appears to satisfy
  WP:GNG given the available sources. That's not to say the article as it is should stay as it is, of course -- just that I don't think deletion is the way to solve problems with the article. That said, I feel like I may misunderstand some of the delete arguments. The most convincing non-keep arguments to me would be (a) that once the page is brought up to NPOV/RS standards it will have insufficient content beyond a dictionary definition, or (b) that there is an obvious target for merge and redirect. I see some comments that have touched on each of these, but I hope someone can either summarize one or both of these positions or otherwise point me to where I may be overlooking or misreading. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per
  WP:NEO. Very less portion of the article actually deal with the term "saffron terror". I roughly checked all the links before the allegation section and less than half of the sources uses the term "saffron terror". Even most of those sources don't discuss the term, rather they discuss the phenomena, which makes this neologism unnotable. The phenomena is rather more notable, but a page move will be required to a better title. --Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 05:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Vigyani, I'm not sure I understand you, because it seems like you are arguing for a rename, but you're voting delete. Yes, the sources in that article need cleaning up, but there are enough sources that discuss the term to meet GNG for the article itself. Even if that were not true, you agree that most of the sources do discuss the phenomenon, which suggests that there is enough material for an article on the subject, whether with this name or a different one. So it seems like your argument is suggesting rename. Or am I reading you wrong? Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:29, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • To clarify: I vote Delete for an article about the term "Saffron terror". But I am probably neutral if the article is renamed and the new article make it clear that it is about concept not the term. The alleged/non-alleged concept of saffron/hindutava terror has been discussed in enough in media and maybe notable. Although, I do not believe that any such terror exist.--Vigyanitalk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 05:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per all the reasoning above, but rename to Hindu extremism or something on the lines of <insert religion here> radicalism. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 06:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep This is notable, sourced, and a widely used term deserving of its own entry. ScrapIronIV (talk) 13:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It has been discussed above why just a passing reference is not enough, providing source for statements like "sourced, and a widely used term" will help here. -sarvajna (talk) 15:22, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pushing your POV onto my comment does not change my vote. The sources are more than adequate. Strong Keep ScrapIronIV (talk) 15:49, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Flying mentions are really not enough for proving notability. There are thousands of terms that are more popular and more notable than this one. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:50, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Over 50,000 Google hits, including an article in the Times of India this year [27] and 23 articles in The Indian Express say otherwise. It is far more than a "flying mention." ScrapIronIV (talk) 16:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I have mentioned above, your personal research of google search doesn't matter, it would only matter when those hits have explained the phenomenon in detail, also I did not mention that you are pushing your POV, commenting that I am pushing my POV doesn't really help here. You comment shows the depth of your research on the subject -sarvajna (talk) 18:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is clearly at issue here, and this is notable. Personally, I don't have a dog in this fight. Someone is apparently offended that this article exists, and wants to see it disappear. I am disconnected from this culturally, nationally, and religiously. The POV that I am pushing is that this belongs, per Wikipedia guidelines. My vote remains at Strong Keep - regardless of how many times individuals with a personal bias try to discount the value of my vote. ScrapIronIV (talk) 18:29, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have failed to

this is not a democracy where number of vote counts. Your bold lettered keep doesn't make much difference. Also keep up with your personal comments, you would be soon finding yourself at ANI or some other place. However it is amazing to know that someone who is fairly new to wikipedia makes such a good comment -sarvajna (talk) 18:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Actually, I did provide a source, but here are two others - which specifically deal with the "the phenomenon in detail" as you have requested. "Symbolism in Terrorism: Motivation, Communication, and Behavior" By Jonathan Matusitz. Chapter 8 is dedicated to this phenomenon. Also, "Arguing Counterterrorism: New Perspectives" edited by Daniela Pisoiu pp. 192-3. These two sources "cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept" as requested by other editors. This should be more than enough to satisfy that requirement. Whether I am a new editor at Wikipedia is immaterial. I am not new at life, research, debate, or human interaction. The request for deletion of this subject is unwarranted, as are threats of taking me to ANI.ScrapIronIV (talk) 19:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again we are not talking about how many times the WP:NEO word apeared in your google search, nor are we looking to create a new word in dictionary by making it famous, please refer to previous comments the books and sourced mentioned by you is already been discussed, nobody is thereatning you nor condemning your point of view, if you do not see the reason, you would not like to read the reason why it has been nominated thats your take Shrikanthv (talk) 06:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ScrapIron's comments are quite justifiable. Reliable sources have been provided that not only use the term, but also discuss the term, as

WP:NEO requires. I provided two such; Kautilya provided a couple; ScrapIron produced some; Neil produced some. Those of you voting "delete" have not provided a convincing rebuttal to any of these. When I confronted you with the EPW source, your only problem was that it was a "magazine," followed by something quite incoherent and off topic. You've produced something similar here. The sources are reliable, and they discuss the topic in question; there really isn't anything more to be said. Vanamonde93 (talk) 08:11, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

The source provided by ScrapIron has already been discussed here, I don't think there is a need for the same rebuttal every time. -sarvajna (talk) 08:24, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again off the mark. My point was that GNG requires two sources, by and large; several more than that have been provided. Therefore, you need to demostrate that all but one are not up to the mark before your votes can be taken seriously. Vanamonde93 (talk) 08:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Off the mark" ? Great argument, it has been said several time during the discussion that you will be able to find not just 2 but event 200 sources where this phrase is mentioned. This is not really helpful unless those resources explain the phenomenon deal with the subject directly. As explained by TFD (in the diff provided) this source fails to deal with the subject properly. You have failed to explain why the source are helpful. All you are able to do is a google search and provide the number of hits of sources which has the phrase. This is not really helpful. -sarvajna (talk) 11:50, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete NONE of them are proved. It is widely believed that this is a part of a structured campaign to tarnish political rivals. None believe these conspiracy theories(Yes, I did called them) other than leftists(who dominate "intellectual" space in India(This explains notability)) who anyway lost grip on reality. According to rule of law, unless one is proved guilty, one should be considered as innocent and more importantly should not be used as political tools. You simply cannot add an article on wikipedia based on some wild allegations especially when it defames a community. तेजा శ్రీనివాస్ 14:16, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

discussion moved to user talk as irrelevant to this page.Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:14, 20 December 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.

You Can't Kill Stephen King (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 couldn't establish that this meets

• Keep since there appears to be coverage from DreadCentral and ShockTillYouDrop. While IMDb lists reviews from mostly unreliable sources, DVD Talk seems acceptable. It also lists that there was a Fangoria review, but I can't find anything online.
  Sun Journal has a paywall article about the film with a cached version here. There's also this, this, and this. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:27, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I meant to post here earlier but kinda lost track. In any case, while the coverage is fairly light for this film it has gotten just enough to where I believe it squeaks by notability guidelines.
  (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:39, 17 December 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) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 18:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails

1. No evidence of multiple notable roles, a cult following, or unique, prolific, or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment (

2. No evidence of regard as an important figure or wide acceptance by peers or successors, nor is there evidence of him creating a notable new concept, theory, or technique. He has played no major role in a well-known work covered independently, none of his works have won significant critical reception. (

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk to me 03:01, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk to me 03:01, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, a notable personality in the context of the Czech theatre, has won awards such as Alfréd Radok Award, which is a very important recognition. I'm trying to improve the article but I'm busy at the moment so my work here is slow and irregular. --
  Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 07:42, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep, meets
  WP:DIRECTOR 4c) "The person's work (or works) either…has won significant critical attention" through his multiple awards, now mentioned in the article and supported by a reliable source. C679 06:17, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep as per above. Won major awards, source exists for verification. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:14, 15 December 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.

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

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

Insufficient evidence to support notability; Google searches only return press releases and company sales pages. Primefac (talk) 23:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk to me 23:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Merge — The creator of this article, Elephant 16, proposed merging this article with LexisNexis (the creator of the tool described in the article) a week ago on the talk page for the nominated article. Why is this even at AfD? —mako๛ 23:50, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - there's nothing in the article worth merging, not a single reliable third-party source that mentions the product. I haven't found any sources beyond a passing mention of less than one sentence and a few rather dubious blogs. That's not enough to establish the software's
  notability; nor is it enough to merge any of the current content elsewhere. Huon (talk) 00:45, 27 November 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. postdlf (talk) 20:15, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

)

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

Article has been around for 8 years without a single reference. I have looked but I can't find anything. Theroadislong (talk) 21:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• CommentKeep: When I first saw that the article had no sources, I thought it might be a candidate for
  WP:BEFORE, I don't feel the article should be deleted. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:18, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

There are more reviews of Freaked linked to from it's article too, from Entertainment Weekly, Variety, and Time Out. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 04:36, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk to me 23:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk to me 23:49, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep Screenwriter for multipole notable films is sufficient for ntoability. DGG ( talk ) 23:29, 14 December 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) 15:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maar, North Dakota (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)

Caldera, Montana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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