Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 March 21

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)

What makes this more notable than either of their other campuses? Launchballer 20:50, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Once notable, always notable. Merton College was once notable and therefore is always notable. Thge fact that it was eventually absorbed by another institution does not change this. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, or Merge into article on successor institution. There is precedent for both options in our treatment of educational institutions. RomanSpa (talk) 22:54, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A merger (retaining the sourced historical content about this school) can be considered separately from the AfD but deletion would not be appropriate here, as
  notability is not temporary. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:09, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - merged notable institutions retain their notability. The question of merging the page is for post-AFD discussion. The Whispering Wind (talk) 23:23, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per
  WP:NTEMP. VMS Mosaic (talk) 00:38, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep -- This tertiary college existed as an independent institution, probably for many years. Its merger with another college does not remove its notability. The article is a poor one, but that implies improving it, not deleting it! Peterkingiron (talk) 15:26, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Eastmain. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 22:12, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Well expressed above. Merger into another entity does not make a subject non-notable. Carrite (talk) 05:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As per all above. Merger doesn't mean it's no longer notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge, per Roman, Whispering, et al. Bearian (talk) 20:45, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) buffbills7701 00:56, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Imagix 4D (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 WP:Notability (software), untouched since inception 4 years ago Ysangkok (talk) 22:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk to me 23:04, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Relisted

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:44, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:34, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (
  ^Notify_Online 20:35, 21 March 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. Olaf Davis (talk) 00:09, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

No evidence of notability with only a self reference, has been proposed for deletion in 2009 and marked as non-notable and un-referenced since 2009 MilborneOne (talk) 18:43, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no notabilityMasterknighted (talk) 20:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails
  WP:GNG.LM2000 (talk) 20:56, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete: Highbeam turns up some coverage in the South African Saturday Star on the back of their annual "Engager Survey" but nothing substantial about the firm. Fails
  WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 09:55, 22 March 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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:19, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Baci Lingerie (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 speedy for publicity/notability/copyvio, I did a quick check of a few phrases for copyvio and haven't found them in current edition. Possibility of notability, bringing to AfD for consensus vs a speedy. Tawker (talk) 18:33, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note - article does require considerable cleanup, does read as advert right now -- Tawker (talk) 18:35, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The copyvio examples listed in the speedy nom were removed by the article creator while the nom was pending. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Are there guidelines for notability of businesses that we could review before voting? Bali88 (talk) 21:49, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The relevant guideline is
  WP:CORP. A quick check of the article's citations indicates they are mostly reprinted press releases. (The Adult Video News source is notorious for this.) Independent RS coverage is a problem here. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I don't think AVN sources are press releases. Apart from that philanthropic works and multiple awards shows notability.--Talpatra (talk) 07:07, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative keep - this brand of lingerie seems to be carried in a decent number of stores. However, the extensive citing of AVN is not ideal. The sources do appear to be mainly press releases. If the sources can be bolstered, I'd support keeping the article. :-) Bali88 (talk) 14:59, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, significant amount of secondary source discussion and recognition with multiple awards. — Cirt (talk) 06:16, 27 March 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 19:49, 29 March 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)

Violates

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the recipe section needs to be reworked. But the article looks reasonable and appears to be sourced otherwise. Certainly improvements can be made. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:23, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Sourced, seems notable, seems fine, if it were too promotional that should be addressed by editing. --doncram 02:50, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Further comment There appears to be a great deal of overlap with the heavily tagged article Old Original Bookbinder's. Merge? Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:26, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep not promotional, simply addresses what others have said about it. There aren't many sources out there. Can't be promotional because it doesn't promote anything, the most close item to promotional is the section where it addresses the Drake's target market. That agrees with many sources online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkouassi (talk • contribs) 14:51, 24 March 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. WP:SNOW j⚛e decker^talk 15:29, 23 March 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)

Deleted following an expired prod. Restored on request but no attempt has been made to add evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete in accordance with
  talk) 18:24, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As for notability, it clearly is a major company in its field, and it possibly is notable , but it needs proof of this, by our usual method: references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources. There are no such references: merely the ranking from a career intelligence web site, and its own wen page.

As for promotionalism , the article consists ofa paragraph of description mixed with puffery and unsupported adjectives of praise, a list of the routine services they offer, a list of offices, and a list of competitors. The first paragraph belongs nowhere unless rewritten from scratch, and the 2nd and 3rd belong only on their own website' the list of competitors is repeated in the lede & the text and really belongs as a category--the way it's used is as advertising that this firm is better than they are . Multiple efforts over time to clean up this article have failed, and the only practical course is to start over--by someone without COI. I think it's safe to assume any editor writing arrant puffery has a COI

I declined to restore it, on the basis that if I did I would just nominate it for a G11. I could do that now, but since it's been brought here, let the consensus deal with it. DGG ( talk ) 21:11, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete as a G11. This article is little more than a press release or ad, and has no business being here without a fundamental rewrite. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 01:27, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, spam. Also very likely a copyvio, I just can't find the source StarM 17:57, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The article is spam from start to finish. I've added just about the only thing that wasn't spam (the founding date, founding name, and founders to Oliver Wyman#Oliver Wyman Group with an independent source. Speaking of which, the latter article could use a good dose of the red pencil. Voceditenore (talk) 18:54, 22 March 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.

Republic of Catan (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 non-notable micronation. Maybe a hoax? Lugia2453 (talk) 18:14, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The Republic of Catan is an official and notable micronation, people like
  Kevin Baugh President of Republic of Molossia recognises Republic of Catan Principality of Sealand unofficially recognises us. We are part of online micronational groups. We are definitely not a hoax. A06jk2 (talk) 18:19, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete No indication of notability through reference to independent media. Acroterion (talk) 18:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Instead of deleting it why don't you help us find a way of making it a more notable micronation. A06jk2 (talk) 18:23, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's not Wikipedia's job to make things notable. Please read

WP:NOT#OR: Personal inventions. If you or a friend invented the word frindle, a drinking game, or a new type of dance move, it is not notable enough to be an article until multiple, independent, and reliable secondary sources report on it. Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Valenciano (talk) 18:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete for reasons I've explained in the reply above. Some bloke declares his bedroom to be an independent country. Great. But Wikipedia judges notability based on coverage in
  reliable sources. Unlike the Principality of Sealand, this one has no coverage in third party sources. A petition to recognise it has achieved the grand total of 7 backers. That tells us all we need to know about the lack of notability. Valenciano (talk) 18:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I accept what your saying but we have actual land registered with the UK Government as "Republic of Catan State" ownership and we have real people, real weather. So why if the UK GOVERNMENT can Recognise a small piece of land as 'independent' i use ' for reasons they do not fully recognise it but they accepted the ownership change? Why wont Wikipedia accept it? A06jk2 (talk) 18:34, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok Lets Say if no Decision is found by 19:00 on 21 March 2014 then we will say Wikipedia shall Not-Delete this article. A06jk2 (talk) 18:48, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• No, that is not how it works. It usually takes up to 7 days, then a decision will be taken (if not the article already have been deleted.) Please do not blank this page or remove the AfD-template on the article. (t) Josve05a (c) 19:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok so 7 days before this hopefully gets cleared up. Kind Regards and Many Apologies. A06jk2 (talk) 19:09, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United nations of catan. Qwfp (talk) 19:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with that deletion but the Republic of Catan has been in existance and I quoute here 'since 1999' making it a micronation that has been around for more than 10 years. Although "I don't think speedy deletion as a hoax applies (since micronations are almost by definition brought into existence by someone saying "I've created a micronation")" quote from the original post you just brought. 86.162.62.218 (talk) 19:31, 21 March 2014 (UTC)— 86.162.62.218 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Speedy delete A7 as a non-notable club. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A06jk2. Ruby Murray 00:48, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There is a lack of notability and there are hoax events as well. Eyesnore (pc) 00:54, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• No you are denying a smaller nation (Micronation) a place in the international community when really who are you to comment on what or who people are. You go around Trolling sites to get pleasure. Its really sad if i'm honest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A06jk2 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 22 March 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.

Electrosmog (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)

Esoteric term redefined as a POV fork of

• Comment - Closing admin, please check
  Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/207.255.205.112 - much abuse of multiple accounts repoted, some of them here.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:58, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete or Merge with merge-to being Electromagnetic radiation and health. There is no need for a second article on this purported phenomenon. Simonm223 (talk) 18:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (or merge) This is nothing more than a POV fork with a pejorative POV name. APL (talk) 18:19, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral There might be enough sources to allow this to remain and be MEDRS compliant, but if so then only barely. Here are some such sources: [1] [2] Also, this has gotten some mainstream media coverage: [3] [4]

talk to me 23:53, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

* Keep and Don't Merge: There's more than enough support that this is a real term in common use that is referenced in literature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.255.205.112 (talk) 13:07, 22 March 2014 (UTC) reported at WP:SPI[reply]

• • Nobody doubts that it's a real term, but Wikipedia is not a dictionary. "Electrosmog" is just a pejorative term for another concept already well covered in the encyclopedia. APL (talk) 15:47, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • And what exactly is the replacement term for electrosmog? the name fits like a glove in my opinion. electromagnetic radiation and health only refers to photons and radiowaves, whether ionizing or nonionizing, and does not include magnetic field smog, or electric field smog, which is part of the definition of electrosmog being man-made fields of that are carcinogenic. For example, low frequency electric and magnetic field pollutions from high voltage power lines have been named as a possible carcinogens and increase the risk of childhood leukemia. This topic would not fit under electromagnetic radiation and health. There are really 3 fields to be considered, as is validated by the widespread commercial acceptance of trifield meters for the purpose of measuring all 3 fields of electosmog: electric, magnetic, and RF. Let me quote from the literature from my trifield meter. "Hazard Thesholds: Studies have suggest the biological effects may begin to occur near 3 milligauss of AC magnetic field; 1 Kv/m electric field, and approximately 1 mW/cm^2 of microwave RF power. long term personal exposure to such environments should therefore be minimized." These levels are more common than people realize. even the government recognizes an RF power density limit of 2 mW/cm^2 for cellphone being held against the skull to avoid potential development of health problems.
    • Deletion is a vote for sockpuppets that control multiple IP addresses that prey on valid articles for the purpose of hiding information for their own political agendas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.255.205.112 (talk) 16:32, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you have evidence that someone is abusing this AfD process, please provide it. Otherwise, I suggest you stick to the point of the discussion. Commenting on other users rather than the article is considered disruptive. – Wdchk (talk) 19:23, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge: If sources have it as a real term, but the content is unnecessarily duplicated, it would be appropriate and useful to leave behind a redirect. – Wdchk (talk) 19:23, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

* keep and Don't Merge: I don't see any evidence of duplication of material. could you point out the location where its duplicated? I think its a bad idea to merge it into Electromagnetic radiation and health because they are different topics.Pattyrobinson56 (talk)— Pattyrobinson56 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reported at WP:SPI

• Keep and Don't merge: Electromagnetic radiation and health is already long enough. I think this makes a good subtopic for this article.Yarnlogo (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:08, 22 March 2014 (UTC) — Yarnlogo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reported at WP:SPI[reply]

• Merge - this is a POV fork, but the term is used, so it is a plausible redirect. There is not that much content in the article that could be merged, and none of the existing sources seems very relevant, except possibly for the bok edited by Savage et al, but that reference is incomplete so it is difficult to verify. --bonadea contributions talk 22:15, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Changing my own !vote to delete and redirect - there really isn't enough content here for merging. --bonadea contributions talk 16:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Electromagnetic radiation and health. One article for one subject.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 01:28, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep and Don't Merger. I was just looking through the history of the article and I think this article is easily fixable. Also, searching the internet leads me to beleive that Electrosmog is the most prevailant term used to describe this issue. electromagnetic radiation and health is too long to use in a sentence when talking about this subject. I vote to keep both, they are both necessary and benifical.Carapiton (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:08, 23 March 2014 (UTC) — Carapiton (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reported at WP:SPI[reply]

• • Except that "Fixing" this article to a neutral tone would make it more or less identical to the EM and Health article. At that point, why not just have a redirect? APL (talk) 02:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as a fork of an existing term. --RaiderAspect (talk) 05:57, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and redirect. Honestly there just isn't enough salvageable material here to make a 'merge' worthwhile—which seems to be the consensus among the non-sockpuppeting, non-new-single-purpose editors familiar with Wikipedia policy. (Anyone who does see any useful, reliable sources that genuinely add value should identify them and note them on Talk:Electromagnetic radiation and health rather than waiting for this AfD to close.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:56, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect (as per above) or (second best) smerge. Electrosmog is a term used only by cranks, it's very likely that as with "wind farm syndrome" the adverse effect is in fact caused by the ravings of these charlatans. For yuks, the "electrosmog doctor" who writes an advertorial column in "What Doctors Don't Tell You" advises using a filter to remove transients from your mains wiring, and then using an ethernet over mains system instead of WiFi. Can you see what's wrong with this picture? Guy (Help!) 17:47, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Noting
  Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/207.255.205.112#Clerk.2C_CheckUser.2C_and.2For_patrolling_admin_comments, I unearthed a sock filing cabinet related to this article. NativeForeigner ^Talk 03:10, 26 March 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 16:35, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sharaf Qaisar (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)

Notability concerns, someone had filed for CSD, I don't believe it's a CSD worthy delete. Tawker (talk) 17:31, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — Thanks for starting this. Subject fails
  WP:MUSICBIO (if they would be covered under that). Overall they lack significant coverage in reliable sources and the article is obviously promotional. STATic message me! 18:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete fails
  WP:GNG.LM2000 (talk) 20:59, 21 March 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.

Talarius gaming system (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. I PRODded this page because the system is, so far as I can tell, utterly non-notable, with a google search only showing three reviews, two by one reviewer and all three of those on RPG.net (i.e. user submitted) and both reviewers being among the game's playtesters. Oh, and one review on Geek Native that very closely matches an RPG.net review. (Note: Do not confuse this tabletop RPG with the company that makes slot machines by the name Talarius). According to |the person contesting the PROD "I am the owner/creator of the Talarius Gaming System ... I actually use this page to tell more people about the gaming system." Also the article creator was a

For that matter finding anything at all on the system is difficult - the only game I've found that uses it is Legends of Kralis (so I've given all the notability I can find for that game; the system doesn't seem to be independently notable of the game - but the game has no page of its own to merge to right now). So I'm treating everything to do with Legends of Kralis (such that there is) as establishing notability for the system.

So far as I can tell this is pure

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per

  WP:GNG; what coverage there is out there is non-independent if not directly self-published. --ElHef (Meep?) 03:19, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

  ]

Relisted

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:23, 21 March 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. Despite the extensive (and I do mean extensive) discussion here, there is no consensus to delete or keep the article at this time. Merger / redirect do not have a consensus either, although specific discussions can still be held at the article talk page.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:26, 30 March 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)

Recently created product article that is non-notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:06, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Note The creator of the article created "PragmaDev RTDS" in March 2012, which is the same product. That was speedily deleted as a copyvio. This is not a copyvio and so that does not apply, however it appears that the creator may have an undisclosed association with the product. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:16, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Author I am Emmanuel Gaudin the author of this article and PragmaDev founder and CEO. I am also part of several program committees such as the SDL Forum conference, the UML & AADL conference, the INCOSE IS2014. My point was to get Real Time Developer Studio in the list of UML tools because that is where it belongs. This required the entry to be linked to a product page, so I did create it.

The tool Real Time Developer Studio project won the French ministry of research national competition on innovative technologies in 2001. The tool is used by large companies such as Alcatel-Lucent, Airbus, or Renault. The tool is integrated with:

• the European Space Agency TASTE framework,
• the Verimag IF model checking tools,
• the LAAS TINA model checking tool,
• PragmaList, a common lab with French national research center CEA LIST.

That should demonstrate enough notability for the tool to keep the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manu31415 (talk • contribs) 10:44, 23 February 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

• Keep

rickreed (talk) 22:48, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing undisclosed as far as I can see. The author is who he claims to be be,

As CEO of PragmaDev the author has an interest in Real Time Developer Studio (RTDS), but I do not understand why that should stop him adding RTDS as an article so that it can be referenced from other pages: he is probably the best person to initiate an article on the tool. It is not clear what the rationale for deleting the article is. The tool has existed for a number of years, is commercially successful, has been referenced in a number of published papers, is quite widely used, and therefore in my opinion is notable should be included in Wikipedia.

End of suggestion from rickreed (talk) 22:48, 24 February 2014 (UTC) — Rickreed (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep

--Edel Sherratt (talk) 18:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC) The author is founder and CEO of PragmaDev, and has an interest in PragmaDev Real Time Developer Studio (PragmaDev RTDS).[reply]

It is very useful indeed to have an article that can be referenced from pages such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specification_and_Description_Language and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Unified_Modeling_Language_tools and the author is the person best placed to initiate such a page.

The tool is cited in a number of reliable, independent publications, including

• Kuhn, T.; Gotzhein, R.; Webel, C., "Model-Driven Development with SDL – Process, Tools, and Experiences" in Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems, Eds.Nierstrasz, Oscar; Whittle, Jon; Harel, David; Reggio, Gianna, Springer LNCS 4199, October 2006
• Hassine, M.B.; Grati, K.; Ghazel, A.; Kouki, A., "Design and Implementation of AIS Link Layer Using SDL-RT," Systems Conference, 2008 2nd Annual IEEE , vol., no., pp.1,5, 7-10 April 2008
• Serge Haddad; Fabrice Kordon; Laurent Pautet; Laure Petrucci, "Distributed Systems: Design and Algorithms", Wiley and Sons Inc. 2011

End of suggestion from Edel Sherratt (talk) 18:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC) — Edel Sherratt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The
  WP:PRODUCT. Unless someone can show that this product has 1) significant coverage in 2) reliable sources that are 3) independent of the subject, the article should be deleted. Its usefulness on Wikipedia is not a subject for debate as Wikipedia is not a repository for indiscriminate subject. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:34, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Response to the comment A number of links with major research centers in France and in Europe have been listed above. In addition, the following publications make reference to the tool:
  • SAM 2010 proceedings Springer LNCS
  • SDL 2009 proceedings Springer LNCS
  • Models 2006 conference Springer LNCS
  • Distributed systems Wiley 2013
  • CASE 2011 Simposio Argentino de Sistemas Embedidos
  • ENSEEIHT school of engineering handout on embedded systems
  • Telecom SudParis school of engineering handout on SDL

This looks like significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Manu31415 (talk) 16:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment They were only mentions of the product so not "significant coverage". What we have is proof that it exists but not that it's notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Significant coverage" would an article about the product that is detailed. That would ideally be something other than a how-to discussion and be more along the lines of describing its features or the benefits of its use or even a case study of how it was used to solve a problem. Academic papers that reference it in a single sentence or list it as a tool used or the like are clearly not what constitutes significant coverage. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:30, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Response to the comment Real Time Developer Studio is based on SDL and UML standard languages so the basic features of editing the models are closely related to the languages and are not discussed directly. The two handouts I refer to are used to teach modeling, and practical exercises are done with Real Time Developer Studio tool. Since the class can not be about a tool but a technology RTDS is only quoted. There are 50 universities using RTDS in class but these are the only two handouts available on line. Again, because RTDS is based on standard languages, research papers only discuss advanced topics such as simulation and test generation (CASE 2011), or code generation (SDL 2009 and SAM 2010). It is not a single sentence in these cases.

What can I say ? Having a tool used in 50 universities, discussed or quoted as a reference in international specialized conferences, integrated with several national research lab technologies and within an ESA framework would not be significant coverage ?! And therefore should not be listed in the

List of UML tools ?! I did not know half of the tools in that list and I do not understand why tools like Software Ideas Modeler or StarUML have more significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject than RTDS. Manu31415 (talk) 10:28, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

So you're saying that you have nothing to help it meet

Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:04, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

I am saying that I did make my point, with the support of Rick Reed who is ITU-T rapporteur for SDL and Edel Sherratt who is a researcher in computer science. I think your questions are legitimate but we replied to them. It looks like you actually already made up your mind in the first place and nothing we can say will make any difference.Manu31415 (talk) 08:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep

--LaurentDoldi (talk) 15:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC) Pragmadev RTDS is the only independent tool commercially available, supporting the widely used ITU-T languages SDL and MSC. Pragmadev is a small French company (about 20 people I suppose), INDEPEDENT and existing since 2001. The two main other companies making commercial SDL tools (Verilog and Telelogic) have been acquired by Rational, now part of IBM.[reply]
I believed that the spirit of Wikipedia was to support small companies or indivuals rather than large capitalist groups governed by quick term profits only. But when I read the comments in favour of deletion, it seems that it is no longer the case.
Remenber that EVERY Airbus aircraft in service in 2014 executes around 300.000 lines of C code generated automatically from SDL (and ASN.1) models developed with RTDS, either in its ATSU computers (Air Traffic Services Unit) on A320, A330 and A340 families, ot in ATC applications running on modular avionics on A380, A400M and A350.
Also if billions of users are using their mobile phones, it is partly thanks to SDL, which has been used in ETSI (European Standards Telecommunications Institute) to help developing the GSM and 3G etc. specifications, then used by companies such as Motorola, Alcatel, Mitsubishi etc. to develop mobile phones and network infrastructures.
I have written 3 books on SDL, two published by myself, and one published by Wiley (http://www.wileyeurope.com/remtitle.cgi?isbn=0470852860). I have been working 32 years as a software engineer for the aircraft and telecom industry, using SDL and other languages, so you can trust me. See my LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/laurent-doldi/6/470/b3 — LaurentDoldi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Sam Sailor ^Sing 15:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Do NOT delete The technical domain addressed by this tool is very specialized. There can only be relevant coverage in academic publications, and the best ones in this domain are the ones listed above. Wikipedia would definitely gain from including such specialized technologies in its pages. Manu31415 (talk) 10:31, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep This is highly specialized software, which deserves an article. It clearly passes
  WP:GNG. scope_creep talk
  17:44 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't see where it passes GNG. Do you have that information handy? Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment  Note that this topic is already listed in the encyclopedia, so "delete" !votes are not policy based.  On the other hand, "keep" is not a policy-based argument given our WP:V policy.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment From where does the idea arise, Unscintillating, that delete !votes are not policy based, when the topic is listed? Sam Sailor ^Sing 18:24, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep  I wasn't going to !vote until I saw this [5][6].  See
  WP:BITE.  As per my previous comment, I am aware that this is not a policy-based keep argument.  However, the statements about the long term notability of this topic made in this discussion and shown in the article are sufficient given the circumstances, and also based on information in the article Specification and Description Language.  I am willing to change my !vote to one that is policy based, including Incubate, if discussion evolves.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Discussion has not evolved, and I have reviewed the arguments.  I'm striking out the !vote here and added a new !vote below.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:37, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment long-term what? It has never been notable. The fact that no one has nominated it for deletion before is simply dumb luck. There is no discussion at Specification and Description Language only an entry, which will be removed when this article is correctly deleted. Arguments for inclusion must be policy-based. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment An AfD nomination is not
    WP:BITEy. Sam Sailor ^Sing 18:24, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Relisted

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 01:13, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the underlying question here is about what notable means when it comes to very specialized technologies. There has been comments from experts in this specialized community to state the tool was actually notable in the domain. The reply from non specialized people is that it is not notable but I do not understand how they can tell. Manu31415 (talk) 09:57, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the question here, that's a question for talk page at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:04, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) says Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Some of the papers listed above describe how they have been using Real Time Developer Studio in their work. It is not trivial or incidental. If that can help please have a look at this CS web page which is unfortunately only available in French. CS is listed on Euronext stock exchange. It basically says that RTDS has been used by CS since 2004 to design the Air Traffic Control for Airbus. That does not look trivial or incidental to me. Manu31415 (talk) 11:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Walter when he comments above that none of the listed papers offer

trivial. Best, Sam Sailor ^Sing 22:46, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

The problem with industrial tools is that companies rarely publicize their usage. It is the opposite with academic tools, there are a lot of publications but that does not mean there are a lot of active users. Most of our success stories are only available on paper format so when a company web site says "in that case PragmaDev for its tool RTDS" it is very meaningful. Anyway in that case the whole CS story has actually been presented at a conference and you can find the whole paper here. Manu31415 (talk) 14:47, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• In the Wikipedia WP:GNG concept, coverage is either trivial or significant.  Trivial coverage is something like the entry in a phone book.  The parenthetical mention being discussed is giving direct attention to the topic, so it is not trivial, even if it is short.  In the real world, or en:notability, if I am reading this correctly, the mention is quite significant, because people's lives under air traffic control are being affected.  This parenthetical text goes directly to the fact that this company has WP:LASTING effects on the world-at-large.  Whether or not this topic meets WP:GNG is another question.  My experience has been that wp:notable companies are listed at Bloomberg's investing.businessweek.com.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:05, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Relisting comment - It appears possible that several of the !votes earlier in the discussion may be from a
  sockpuppet, in which the same user may be using using different signatures. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:20, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• That may be true, but the product is certainly worth an article. Its probably 3-4th generation modelling tool from an established software company, creating and implementing a real-time modelling language with code generation. scope_creep talk 23:52 25 March 2014 (UTC)
• What makes you think it is the same user with different signatures ? Who are you thinking of ? Manu31415 (talk) 12:24, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect and Merge to Specification and Description Language  I find the comments of the author of the three books on SDL to be helpful.  The current article lacks the needed inline citations required by WP:V, so redirect for now.  Merge using inline citation is left as an exercise for interested parties, which we have expertise on SDL here.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:37, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the target article some more, I suggest the merge consider the creation of

List of SDL tools.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:22, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Note that

Specification and Design Language redirects to Specification and Description Language.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:47, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Few remarks on the previous comment:

• The current article has not gone further because the article was considered for deletion. It will be improved if it is not deleted.
• I do not understand why merging a technology article and a tool article would help.
• Creating a
  List of SDL tools requires each listed tools to have an entry in Wikipedia. This is why I created this article in the first place, to be listed in the List of UML tools. Because our tool supports both technologies as well as TTCN-3
  .
• The motivation of Walter Görlitz to delete the article is that the tool is not notable enough to have its own entry. In that case it will be excluded of any 'List of XXX tools'. I consider the tool has significant coverage and deserves its own entry. Notability is the core of this discussion. The comments should help to reach a consensus on that point. Manu31415 (talk) 14:42, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Do not Merge. What is the point of merging this article with the Specification and Description Language article. There is simply no benefit having them both together, and there is likely other tool chains which use this specification, in the future with attendant articles. Are they all going to be merged? It is simply a question of notability. These strange wee software product(s) which never existed except perhaps in paper form in as little as 10-20 years ago, deserve an article. WP deserves it. If we are to simply rely on those software companies which have a big enough budget and nous to make their products popular and well known, then it's going to be a pretty barren landscape in WP. It is well worth an article. scope_creep talk 18:04 28 March 2014 (UTC)

• Quote from a notability guideline. 
  WP:LISTN AKA WP:Notability#Stand-alone lists
  states,

Unscintillating (talk) 13:57, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Quote from a manual-of-style guideline.
  WP:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists#Common selection criteria
  states,

Unscintillating (talk) 13:57, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment  The problem at
  List of UML tools
  is not that the topic may or may not be non-notable.  The quotes above clarify that such is not an issue, or at least shouldn't be, at that list. 
• Comment  The threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is WP:V verifiability.  The problem at
  WP:COI need to hold themselves to a higher standard, and support the concern of the community that such editors may knowingly or unknowingly be promoting their products in lieu of building an encyclopedia.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:57, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

What? The threshold for inclusion of sources is

WP:N. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:18, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment  It is my experience that Wikipedia has a systemic bias against European software developers.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:57, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is my experience that Wikipedia has a systematic bias in favour of notable subjects and nothing else. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:18, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment  WP:V has said since I think 2005, "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability..."  This means inclusion of material/information.  Another important concept from WP:V is WP:BURDEN, "Sometimes editors will disagree on whether material is verifiable. The burden of identifying a reliable source lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing any reliable source that directly supports the material."  Unscintillating (talk) 21:51, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Verifiability#Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. You're just plain wrong. Verifiability does not have anything to do with whether an article should or should not be included on Wikipedia. What you're confusing is the following sentence: "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it" (emphasis mine). So V refers to references only, not articles. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:22, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Your edit comments are becoming increasingly agitated, moving from "wrong" to now "dead wrong".  This concept has now come out in the prose, too.  Yet if I say "material/information", and you complain that I said "articles", this is your problem, not mine.  I agree that verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, in fact, if you look at the essay WP:Inaccuracy, of which I am the main author, it says, "Ultimately, with allowing for due weight considerations in how the material is presented, and notwithstanding copyright violations, the only reason to exclude verifiable material from the encyclopedia is because it is insignificant."  Unscintillating (talk) 01:55, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was Merge to Polyamory.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:27, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Compersion (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)

There seems to be a number of issues with this page that I believe could best be fixed by deleting page and merging its contents with

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd like to see an outcome besides deletion here—even a soft redirect to Wiktionary, which I don't usually like. This article was linked from The Atlantic, and I don't like the idea of a bunch of people (like me) getting sent to a nonexistent page. --BDD (talk) 04:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • talk) 14:15, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• WP:NEO or not. – RobinHood70 ^talk 22:15, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak Keep. I disagree that there is any danger of Wikipedia ‘introducing’ a term that can be traced to multiple sources, even if their reliability is in question, unless they can all be traced back here in the first place.( There are other reasons I think it should stay, but I suspect they have more to do with personal opinion than Wikipedia goals.) I do wonder, since the lede says it’s not exclusively a poly term, whether other contexts can be sourced. If so, then a merge into polyamory could be inappropriate. Is there another term for empathetic joy? The notion of being “happy for you”? That might be a better target. --WikidSmaht (talk) 17:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Another term for empathetic joy is "mudita". I agree that an article like mudita would be a good target to merge the information to, though I'd say "compersion" deserves some material on the polyamory article as well. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 04:13, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The lead does claim that, but I was unable to find any source, reliable or not, that used the term outside of the context of polyamory. It seems to be used exclusively within polyamory communities (and online on blogs or personal web pages). I agree if such a source could be found it may help demonstrate some notability.
  talk) 04:15, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 01:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. The term might be a neologism, which would make the article fail the general notability guideline, but I certainly don't see a problem with including information about it on other related articles; there are sources out there that talk about it. I think merging some of the material to polyamory would be appropriate, and some the content should perhaps appear in the mudita article, since compersion and mudita seem to encompass nearly identical concepts. Note that on the article discussing schadenfreude (the opposite of mudita), there is a section titled "Neologisms and variants". Perhaps the mudita article could have a similar section where it discusses compersion. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 04:13, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. While I'm not opposed to a merge to polyamory, I'm not sure a merger to mudita makes sense. While they may be similar concepts, I'm not aware of any
  talk) 04:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment. Fair enough. For what it's worth, I did a quick google search for both of the terms together, but most of what came up were personal blogs. So there may be some RS out there discussing the two terms together, but none that jump out. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 04:14, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Compersion is not unique to Polyamory or even non-monogamy. I see the term commonly used, and may be less of a neologism than people believe. I found references from at least as far back as 1981 http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01257945 The occurences in literature and scholarly references have been much more frequent in the past ten years. 75.72.39.145 (talk) 03:06, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Could you cite some sources for that? The only link you provided is about polyamory (the abstract makes no mention of "compersion").
  talk) 04:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment reply: The cite given is actually about polyfidelity from a journal in 1981. "The "starling" relationship elicits what they call "'compersion" rather than jealousy." from that source. Ananapol 1997 also is a scholarly citation. Anapol, Deborah M. Polyamory the new love without limits: Secrets of sustainable intimate relationships. Intinet Resource Center, 1997. Journal of Bisexuality Volume 4, Issue 3-4, 2004 Journal of Bisexualty, Plural Loves: Bi and Poly Utopias for a New Millennium. it is referenced as well. Numerous references 2004 and following, and that is ten years ago. "Some polyamorous people experience compersion, which means feeling joy that one's partner is sharing" Weitzman, Geri. "Therapy with clients who are bisexual and polyamorous." Journal of Bisexuality 6.1-2 (2006): 137-164. "Wolfe (2003) studied jealousy and compersion in the polyamorous community." Cook, Elaine S. Commitment in polyamorous relationships. Diss. Regis University, 2005. Keener, Matt C. A phenomenology of polyamorous persons. Diss. The University of Utah, 2004. "Compersion is the ability to transform jealousy into the vicarious enjoyment of a lover's pleasure leading to joy" McCoy, Megan Ann, et al. "Who's in our clients’ bed? A case illustration of sex therapy with a polyamorous couple." Journal of sex & marital therapy ahead-of-print (2013). It has been awhile since I have participated, but it seems to me it is not uncommon for someone who is unfamiliar with a term to call it a neologism. In this case, It think, not appropriately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.39.145 (talk) 12:27, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP! KEEP! Well as a practicing Compersionist with a growing number of followers emerging from the massive swingers scene of Melbourne, I think there is much said above about reference and history, however I think you need to accept that this is a new term with a new history which is still being written. We have been running workshops on Compersion for more than 5 years, and have recently made the move to commence a website compersion.com.au as well as running a Facebook group for Compersion: [10]

What you will find is that Compersionists are largely NOT part of the Polyamory subculture but are most often existing partners looking for a more appropriate way of strengthening their partnerships, allowing personal freedom in the context of a caring, supportive and trusting relationship (this where the anti-jealousy conversation comes from - but it is not a claim to be the "opposite" of jealous! This is exactly the time to fix this messy wiki Compersion reference. It has moved on from the Kerista folk - they just coined the term. We are now actively using this term and living in a specific way which can be taught. Compersion forms part of the sexual sub-culture paradigm shift underway and can be linked to Michel Foucault's "postsexual" (

Postsexualism_(Michel_Foucault)

) concept.

Please also reference Utilitarianism and Hedonism. From the Utilitarianism page - "In the golden rule of Jesus of Nazareth, we read the complete spirit of the ethics of utility. To do as one would be done by, and to love one's neighbour as oneself, constitute the ideal perfection of utilitarian morality." According to Bentham and Mill, utilitarianism is hedonistic only when the result of an action has no decidedly negative impact on others." Compersionists are in part hedonistic utilitarians who believe that our pleasure is derived from supporting the freedom of our partner to experience pleasure in whatever form it takes (within guidelines established and evolved by he individual partners) and loving our friends to the extent that may sometimes but not always include physical intimacy, without reprisal or judgment.

120.148.68.127 (talk) 04:38, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Hey there. You may not be familiar with the requirements of
  talk) 04:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment - Sorry Hey There - I am not attempting to be some literary genius - most users of Wikipedia are not.. I simply want to ensure that key terms in use, that the general population may look up on Wikipedia are appropriately defined and linked to other themes.

120.148.68.127 (talk) 03:46, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:09, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP KEEP , Compersion is a way in which couples and individuals live , experience and express relations and relationships with others in a non judgemental way. Its not limited to just physical intimacy in which most swingers, poly groups focus more on, but can be expressed with loving friendships, freedom in relating and forming relationships, emotional connections, mental connections, spiritual connections , friendship, these are all expressed in a compersionsist experience in relating and as approach to life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.148.68.127 (talk) 10:14, 24 March 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. Article has been greatly improved and while not perfect now clearly satisifies the notability guideline, and there is consensus on this. Andrewa (talk) 13:38, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tablewaiters (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 page came up as a random article. Having tidied up and sorted out some of the references and external links, I am not sure that this band has the required level of notability for the article to remain. The band released one single and recorded one album which was not released (nor, indeed, mixed). Only a vague claim to fame seems to be having appeared with other better known acts. It would appear that this band may have had some local following, but there is no indication of significant sales, chart entries or anything else to suggest notability. Emeraude (talk) 12:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I can't find much besides passing mentions, and no charting.Doctorhawkes (talk) 10:15, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• McFarlane (1999) has no entry on Tablewaiters. The entry on The Birthday Party makes no mention of being supported by Tablewaiters. The use of this reference is deceptive at best. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And it's not the only source that does not support what is claimed. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:14, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• McFarlane briefly mentions Table Waiters in his article on 'Roddy Radalj'. However it does not support claims of touring/support slot list.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 20:53, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Borderline at best - it pains me slightly to note there's very little here. The references are indeed not good. Nor can I claim even to have heard of them before this. The creator, User:MrMoog, is clearly a fan, has flyers, etc; may have e.g. contemporary press coverage. (I see they haven't been pinged, they should be.) I fear Wikipedia may not be the place for this (though I'm still willing to be convinced otherwise) - David Gerard (talk) 07:52, 28 February 2014 (UTC) Edit: Wait on original author - he's dredging the clippings collection now - David Gerard (talk) 12:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I change my opinion to keep - great work MrMoog, Dan and Shaidar! - David Gerard (talk) 08:16, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Issues with sourcing, band has not charted or attracted alternative notability. It can be difficult with bands from a while back as it's not possible to search past newspapers for that period, but the issues Duffbeerforme identifies raise concerns. Orderinchaos 16:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - have addressed almost every issue relating to the references (so there is no deception as alluded to by Duffbeerforme) with the exception of the McFarlane entry for the Birthday Party, as I haven't been able to access the source to check. As indicated by Orderinchaosand David Gerard at this stage it is hard to check past newspapers online to ascertain any contemporary press coverage. Based however on the information I have been able to locate it appears that there may be a case for establishing the band's notability.Dan arndt (talk) 08:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a partial scrape of the copy of McFarlane that was on whammo.com.au - the Tablewaiters are not mentioned in the Birthday Party entry, and are not in fact mentioned anywhere in the files I have - David Gerard (talk) 14:04, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Did you check alternate spellings? See above for Table Waiters at 'Roddy Radalj' entry.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 20:53, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    No I didn't, well spotted! - David Gerard (talk) 22:17, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• * I have uploaded a sample worksheet which clears up the reference to the The Birthday Party support. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Birthday_Party_Tablewaiters_Nucleus_Worksheet_1983.jpg. As the band toured nationally and were covered in the national music press, there are other clippings reviews etc which I can also upload if this helps the case. As part of a stable of bands linked to Lobby Loyde such as Sardine_v Machinations Sunnyboys I should have thought that this would have been be a worthy addition to that information of that period in Australian Music.MrMoog (talk) 01:16, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Keep This would definitely help: support slots with other notable bands will add weight to Tablewaiters claims per
    WP:BAND. As for clippings: there was an article in Juke, of 17 April 1982, but I can't find a page reference. It would also help if MrMoog declared their association with the group: former member, management or ardent fan? If the various claims can be reliably substantiated I'm looking to Keep this article.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:42, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment Thanks yes, here are a small sample of more worksheets; https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Worksheet_Summerfest_melbourne_tablewaiters_supporting_Men_at_Work_and_Mental_as_Anything.jpg, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Worksheet_1983_Split_Enz_tour_tablewaiters.jpg, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Worksheet_b_1983_Split_Enz_tour_tablewaiters.jpg, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Worksheet_Capitol_Theatre_Tablewaiters_supporting_Psychedelic_Furs.jpg, in order support spots for
    Mental as Anything at Summerfest 1983 in Melbourne. Also part of a tour they did with Split Enz and finally a spot they did with the visiting British Band The Psychedelic Furs. As a fan and a close associate of the members involved I have kept boxes of ephemera from that period, and have also kept some newspaper clippings from that period of varying quality. (It was thirty years ago).MrMoog (talk) 10:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • To show they're noteworthy, the newspaper coverage would be useful. You don't have to upload it for proof (and it'd clearly be someone else's copyright), but if you cite it and quote it accurately that'll be quite sufficient :-) If they got piles of press coverage, that helps a lot - David Gerard (talk) 12:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, have added some references to the actual article - clippings that I can identify because of their clarity and in one case the actual magazine which is here. A lot of the other newspaper clippings are poorly noted or non existent dating and sourcing. I can upload these as someone maybe able to identify the source via the writer. Hope this helps.MrMoog (talk) 23:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This all seems to be "notability by association" for a band that released one single and never completed an album. Emeraude (talk) 10:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• They're still a bit borderline, but this is way better than it was - David Gerard (talk) 12:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Gye Bennetts is independently notable and could have his own article as a member of two other notable bands,
  WP:BAND criteria #1, #4, and #6. Only one criterion is required for notability.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 19:35, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Have added some links found for the Tablewaiter drummers Hywrka and Bennetts, both previously came from a band called The Agents which was James Griffin's bandMrMoog (talk) 10:27, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both in the Agents? That caught my eye! - David Gerard (talk) 10:58, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just tarted up James Griffin (songwriter) a bit from McFarlane, by the way - moar needed - David Gerard (talk) 15:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 01:20, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• keep - as per
  WP:BAND items #1, #4 & #6 as mentioned above. Kathodonnell (talk) 15:33, 22 March 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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:27, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Basically promotional article for a series of books. There are a great number of references, demonstrating the success not of the method,but of the PR effort that has gone into it. There is no reason why we should join in. DGG ( talk ) 18:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm biased, since I'm the author of the page (however, I don't have any direct connection with Cal Newport, and have never interacted with him one-on-one). But it seems to me that the references are sufficiently numerous and diverse that notability is established. The value judgment question of whether this is because of a "PR effort" or the "method" doesn't seem relevant to whether the page is suitable to stay (for instance, the existence of pages on scientology or homeopathy isn't dependent on the factual claims of the belief systems being true, but rather on their notablity).Vipul (talk) 18:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A well researched article on a public figure that clearly meets the notability criteria. DGG, if you have evidence that this is a promotional article, please supply it. I remind you that assuming good faith is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia. Sir Paul (talk) 02:38, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete. A GS
  WP:Author but I don't think there are sufficient in-depth independent sources to pass this. The BLP is disadvantaged by much puffery. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:46, 24 February 2014 (UTC).[reply
  ]
• Comment'Specific indications of promotionalism :

The appearance of a large number of low quality references in no more convincing than than a smaller number, but promotional editors usually add all they can find. DGG ( talk ) 09:07, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 22:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (
  ^Notify_Online 01:48, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Massively short of
  WP:GNG either.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 14:36, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep: significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orser67 (talk • contribs)
• Weak keep. The article is so badly
  WP:GNG, but all the other sources should be trimmed, and the article itself trimmed to what its reliable sources can support. As it is, I agree with the deleters that this is far too promotional. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • PS I have carried out the trimming of promotional material and bad sources that I think was needed for this article. As an academic computer scientist he also has some highly cited papers (four with over 100 citations each on Google scholar) but some of them appear to be work with other authors that he participated in as an undergraduate, so whether it should count for
    WP:PROF#C1 is unclear. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:15, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Where are these citations? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:10, 10 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Google scholar search for "author:calvin-newport". —David Eppstein (talk) 22:33, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:07, 21 March 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:31, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hatem Saber (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 Notability , unreliable sources ( references are interviews with him), his rank is Colonel and not Held the top-level military command position. the arabic wikipedia article also put for deletion --Ibrahim.ID »» 09:04, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the references are there, it just needs tidying up. I lived in Egypt for 15 years and everyone knows this guy. Best not to take a pro-US view on these things. --Sammen Salmonord (talk) 20:13, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, How is there is no notability for a a military officers who held the command position of the top military units in

Say Hello!, 17:15, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Relisted

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:06, 21 March 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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:34, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I think with a little bit of work, this page could be an interesting addition to Wikipedia; however, as is, there are no reliable sources, including, importantly, no verification that Restroom Association actually exists. After reading this, I'm not clear on the scope or purpose of the organization either. "LOO" looks like it's possibly an acronym? Additionally, existing notes links don't help; the first is broken. Morphovariant (talk) 23:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Related to the World Toilet Organization, also founded by Jack Sim in Singapore. Local news coverage definitely exists. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 17:04, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  International coverage exists too. --Hildanknight (talk) 16:09, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm not an expert on the topic of toilets in SE Asia, but is there any reason this can't be merged into Jack Sim who seems to spend a lot of his time starting up assorted toilet-related bodies? It doesn't seem very notable.--Colapeninsula (talk) 16:31, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NativeForeigner ^Talk 09:30, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• 'ehh: There's so little here it could be merged to Jack Sim. This org is a far cry from the coverage Committee to End Pay Toilets in America got.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:42, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:05, 21 March 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. Despite the walls of text below, only two users participated in this discussion. No consensus was reached.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:28, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The guy's notability is suspect. The author keeps adding his name to the list of Russian avant-garde painters, although the Russian avant-garde flourished before 1930. Such works from the 1980s are by no means avant-garde; they are standard Impressionist imitations quite typical for the late Socialist Realism. Ghirla^-трёп- 20:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Keep Hi Ghirlando. Firstly, apologies for the multiple attempts at trying to add his name to the list of Russian avant-garde painters – that is because I am a complete Wiki novice (first ever article written) and still learning the proper guidelines for entries etc. –being unsure whether the changes had saved and thus trying to do it multiple times before I learnt how to read the edit history of an article and understood the listing had actually been removed.

Kolyada actually did start his artistic career before the 1930s during his time as a student at the Vhutemas-Vhutein. So far, only one example image of his avant garde works has been uploaded to wiki (Self Portrait with a Cap – owned by the Tretyakov Gallery), but there are at least seven other examples of his artwork from this period, including some found freely on the internet (e.g. Portrait of a Woman, 1935), which show the hallmarks of avant garde works and are markedly different to his later works. As noted in the Wiki article itself, his artistic career commenced during the avant garde period and he was a member of the OST (Society of Easel Painters), if only for two years prior to its disbandment by the authorities in accordance with the 1932 decree Restructuring Literary and Artistic Organisations. It is also notable that a number of his early avant garde works were destroyed in a fire in suspicious circumstances.

In 2002, two of his works (“Landscape in Yellow Tones”, 1930 and “Portrait of a Woman”, 1935 – items 47 and 48 at Chapter 16) were included in the publication “Russian Post Avant Garde, 1920 – 1940.” (Original text in Cyrillic). Images of both the publication cover and the comments on his works at Chapter 16 can be provided.

If the consensus is that he still does not meet the guidelines for inclusion in this artistic period, that is fine and no further attempts will be made to add him to the list of Russian avant garde painters. Part of what makes him unique as an artist is that he spanned different artistic periods in Russian history.

However, non-inclusion in the list of Russian avant-garde painters does not justify the overall deletion of the entry for Sergei Kolyada. The wiki guidelines for notability for a creative professional include a requirement that (4) the person’s work (or works):

(b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition

The full list of Kolyada’s exhibitions – both group exhibitions and solo exhibitions commencing in the 1940s right through to his inclusion in exhibitions at least a decade after his death are listed in the Wiki article. Links to relevant exhibition catalogues are also included, such as his solo “My Moscow Exhibition” in Moscow, 1985. The fact that he has exhibited in four continents (Russia, France, Australia, United States), often with accompanying local press also goes to demonstrate the significance of his work. See for instance the listed references in the Wiki article.

(d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums

As noted in the Wiki article, The State Tretyakov Gallery, The Moscow Historical Museum and the Lounatcharsky Museum hold a dozen of the artist’s works in their permanent collections.

Further, the Wiki general notability guideline states “A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,and independent of the subject.” There are references included in the reference list which are independent secondary sources and all meet this criteria – such as the well known reference book by Matthew Bown. Still to be added to the wiki article are comments on Kolyada’s major work – his series “Old Moscow” by art critic Valentina Azarkovich who asserted this series had unique archival value as well as artistic merit. Similar published comments were made by art commentator (and artist himself) Vladimir Kostin (1985). This series can be considered Sergei Kolyada’s unique contribution because the pieces were all painstakingly historically researched – each piece included the artist’s archival research about the history of the building from Old Moscow such as its architectural history, its previous inhabitants, notable features etc.

Happy to take on any further feedback to improve the article in any way – definitely still learning how to edit on Wiki and would be very discouraged to have the article completely deleted. Kind regards, Allthesevens Allthesevens (talk) 00:34, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NativeForeigner ^Talk 09:31, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for re-listing. Looking forward to some more discussion and a fair outcome.Allthesevens (talk) 00:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:03, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As there has been no further contribution to the discussion; thought it would be useful to add some further points for consideration in response to the original concerns raised:

In summary, Kolyada’s notability is not suspect – in fact it has been well established in the previous post in accordance with WP:N and WP:Creative. The issue of inclusion in the Avant-garde period is a secondary issue and should be considered as such.

Such works as stated by Ghirla(but with comments on only one painting) were never shown or intended to be included as Avant-garde paintings. To assess such works as standard impressionist painting, is a brief judgement badly argued if argued at all with only one painting involved. If some of Kolyada’s paintings are similar - in some ways- to impressionist paintings (post impressionism), it is simply because the treatment of the subject required the use of that particular style, most of the artist’s works cannot be confused with impressionism, some of his works are expressionist in style, others are using symbolism and a strong use of colour is preponderant. One cannot judge the lifelong works of a “true” artist whose artistic career spanned three distinct artistic periods with a brief comment on only one painting.

The single “work” referred to is clearly not Avant-garde (and was never claimed to be); but examples of Kolyada’s works which do meet the criteria for Avant-garde / Post Avant-garde are freely available on the internet eg image , have been included in publications for this period, included in exhibitions for this period and are held in the permanent collections of notable galleries (State Tretiakov Gallery in Russia and the Museum or Russian Art in the USA).

As for Ghirla's statement: although the Russian avant-garde flourished before 1930, it is an inexact, approximate statement. In fact, "Russian avant-garde is a common term denoting a most remarkable art phenomenon that flourished in Russia from 1890 to 1930, though some of its early manifestations date back to the 1850s, whereas the latest ones refer to the 1960s. The phenomenon of Russian avant-garde does not correspond to any definite artistic program or style. This term was assigned to radical innovative movements that started taking shape in the prewar years of 1907–1914, came to the foreground in the revolutionary period and matured during the first post-revolutionary decade." (Source: http://www.russianavantgarde.nl/Russian_Avantgarde_Art/Russian-Avantgarde.html

Today, the most famous “Avant-garde” artists are those who chose to be exiled (Kandinsky, Chagall, Goncharova, Malevich). Artists who chose to remain in the Soviet Union and compromise to various degrees with the authorities have been forgotten or neglected but for a few. (See for instance comments by Charley Parker )

During that period (from 1929 to 1940), Kolyada’s style was a simplification of shapes and forms to go to the essential of his expression through the use of large patches of colors on a graphic frame. It was an original and unique style that deserves recognition and fits within the broadly accepted criteria for the Avant-garde / Post Avant-garde style. Only 15 of Kolyada’s paintings created between 1929 and 1940 still exist or are well identified today. As mentioned in the article, a great number of Kolyada’s early paintings were destroyed in a fire in 1945.

In April 1991, 3 of Kolyada’s paintings of that period were included in an exhibition at the “New Tretiakov Gallery” “Painters of the 20’s and 30’s”. Two of his works have also been included in the book “Post avant-garde : 1920 – 1940“ mentioned in the article. Kolyada’s last known work of that period “Daisies” (1940) was acquired by the State Tretiakov gallery and is held in their permanent collection. A further three paintings from this period are held in the State Tretiakov Gallery and three have been exhibited in the Museum of Russian Art in the USA.

Regardless of any debate over his eligibility for inclusion in the list of Russian Avant-garde painters; Kolyada’s overall notability as an artist (as argued in previous post in accordance with WP:N and WP:Creative) cannot be denied and it is not appropriate to dismiss him on the basis of one user’s personal judgement of a single work of art.

Indeed, Kolyada’s major contribution in his last thirty years was his series (120 paintings) on Old Moscow. --Allthesevens (talk) 01:25, 27 March 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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:36, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nepal Bhasa Wikipedia (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 version of Wikipedia; the article doesn't include any third-party sources. eh bien mon prince (talk) 18:53, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk to me 20:25, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep. The fact asserted in the article, that there are 70,000 articles in
  Newar is another name for the language and perhaps coverage could be under that name, too. I have to believe that this is notable, and that there is coverage in Nepal and elsewhere, in Nepal Bhasa language, in Newar, and in other languages, of this Wikipedia. Let it develop. (Similar to my !vote in AFD about Piedmontese Wikipedia). --doncram 23:59, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • Yes, it is the same illogical, non policy-based argument you have used in the other nomination. I will reply with the same question, can you prove that the article meets
    WP:GNG or can you not? That is the only question worth asking, the number of articles is not relevant to the deletion discussion.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 11:10, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Relisted

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 18:57, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piedmontese Wikipedia, which was started at the same time, was closed Keep. A participant commented that there are Wikipedia articles on other language Wikipedias, and doesn't see why this one should differ. I agree. --doncram 21:05, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Why should it differ? Because it's not notable, and your failure to provide any supporting sources to justify your keep !vote even after two weeks further proves it. Your vote should be discounted as it has absolutely no basis in Wikipedia policy.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 06:12, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of Wikipedias as a non-notable wiki (see [11], for precedent). ansh666 04:52, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:36, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 19:00, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per
  WP:TNT. Even if, arguendo, this site were notable, the article is such a mess of word salad as to be nonsense. Bearian (talk) 19:29, 24 March 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. Olaf Davis (talk) 00:16, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Swap.com (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)

Swap.com is out of business and irrelevant in the history of the Internet, as Swap.com never took off beyond some initial start-up press. The company is now owned by someone completely different and is a children's consignment operation. Highly recommend a deletion. Ethanwa (talk) 04:15, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 19:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Lacks the broad coverage needed to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:16, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I found these sources: [12], [13], [14]. I think I could be able to find more. → Call me
  21 18:13, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Found more: [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]. I think those are enough to show it meets GNG. → Call me
    21 18:19, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Comment Some of those are press releases and warmed-over press releases. --j⚛e decker^talk 00:28, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know. I just added them because they have some info that can be used. I did not do an extensive search though. → Call me

21 02:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Relisted

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:55, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Most of those sources are press releases or self published in some form, but I did see some that looked relatively secondary and independent.LM2000 (talk) 21:07, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the significant coverage found by
  talk · contribs). See this article titled "Swap.com's New Scan App Makes Trading Stuff Easy" from Mashable and this article from The Boston Globe titled "After spending more than $11 million, Boston-based Swap.com acquired by Finnish startup for undisclosed amount" for two examples of substantial coverage. See also this article from the Boston Herald titled "Barter Web site aims to be ‘eBay of swap’". The online article is only three short paragraphs, but it is likely longer with the rest of the article hidden behind a paywall. (The page says "The article you requested has been archived" at the bottom.) This is sufficient coverage to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 04:05, 22 March 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) 01:34, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kannada Wikipedia (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 version of Wikipedia; the article doesn't include any third-party sources. eh bien mon prince (talk) 01:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk to me 03:21, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep: Is notable please check there are 38 million speakers and most of the newspapers and articles are not available online (english translated)

there was been even a ten years celebration in local newspaper of kannada wiki

here

proofs of third party sources

http://vijaykarnataka.indiatimes.com/articleshow/18968557.cms?prtpage=1

http://vijaykarnataka.indiatimes.com/articleshow/20396555.cms

below the news papers is asking people to refer to kannada wikipedia http://vijaykarnataka.indiatimes.com/articleshow/16542535.cms?prtpage=1

Other info Shrikanthv (talk) 08:47, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 19:09, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep – one more here and lots of other on the big net (and in the local newspapers). Christian75 (talk) 09:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:54, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Upon a source search and review, the topic passes
  WP:GNG
  per:

• The New Indian Express (in Hindi)
• The Hindu
• The Hindu

– NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:05, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as notable per NA's sources. ansh666 04:53, 26 March 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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:38, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marion Malena (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)

My dead grandmother is more notable. Sorry. Nnborg (talk) 16:47, 27 February 2014 (UTC)— Nnborg (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No evidence of coverage in multiple sources. This person is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I don't see the sources needed here. Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:49, 2 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:Ban 03:45, 25 March 2014 (UTC)][reply]
• Comment: the nomination is pretty close to one of the examples given in
  WP:OTHERSTUFF; I urge the nominator to write an article on his dead grandmother. Kaimahi (talk) 06:37, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment I have just doubled the number of references. Kaimahi (talk) 06:37, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article now has four times the number of sources as when the
  WP:SPA nominated it. Kaimahi (talk) 01:14, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Well, it only has four sources altogether. But it is a start. I suggest moving it to Draft space where it can be worked on, if you're open to that. Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:Ban 03:45, 25 March 2014 (UTC)][reply]
    • Draft is better than no place, I guess. Kaimahi (talk) 20:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker^talk 20:57, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since there's been some acknolwedged improvement to the article, I'm giving this a relist to allow editors to weigh in on the article as it now stands, and also to allow for a potential respose by Kaimahl to Sportfan5000's suggestion. I don't see urgent enough issues here to rush. --j⚛e decker^talk 20:59, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy - this sounds like the best option, so it can be worked on and improved further. I can't really determine any outstanding notability either way, but I can sort of see how, with some editing, it could pass. Mabalu (talk) 10:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per
  WP:HEY, or userfy if the consensus is that it needs further work on sourcing. Bearian (talk) 16:26, 20 March 2014 (UTC) FWIW, by it, I mean the article, not the subject of the article. Bearian (talk) 16:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:53, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for two reasons: improvements to the article, and procedurally, because of the insulting tone by the SPA nominator. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:15, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sources are all extremely local. This is not the type of independent, unrelated coverage we sully expect for someone to generate.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:24, 25 March 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.

List of Bengali Hindu language martyrs (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)

Re-creation of

Sorry for confusion. There is no intention to demean the

Bengali Hindu martyrs who died for the cause of Bengali language in Assam. You are right there is nothing called "Bengali Hindu language". The title should be read as "List of 'Bengali Hindu' 'language-martyrs'". Honestly there is no intention to discriminate anyone for the basis of religion. However, as you might know that in Assam, the Bengali Hindus are identified as "Bengali Hindus" only. In that regard, the title should not be considered POV. BengaliHindu (talk) 15:34, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

I apologies for any mistake but how do you conclude they were Hindus? Bengali names do not necessarily conclude they were Bengali Hindus. The sources you cited in the article being discussed and the Bengali language movement of Barak Valley in Assam mention only "Bengali people" and neither Bengali Hindus nor Bengali Muslims. While the Barak Valley has more or less equal no. of Bengali Muslims and Bengali Hindus then how do you conclude only Hindus fought for this movement? Please, show me reliable references and I will be more than happy to withdraw this nomination.

Please look at the family names. They are Bhattacharya, Sutradhar, Debnath, Niyogi, Deb, Pal, Sarkar, Chakraborty, Biswas, Purakayastha, Chakraborty and Das. If you look at the first names, all of them are Bengali or Sanskrit words. None of them are Arabic or Persian. So in all probability they are Hindus. Further proof is that they all were cremated and their memorials are located next to the crematorium in Silchar. It further proves that the martyrs were Hindus. I do not claim that only Hindus fought for this movement. I only listed the martyrs as Bengali Hindus because they were indeed Bengali Hindus. I do not intend to demean the sacrifice of any Bengali Muslim or Manipuri who took part in this movement. I do not intend to demean the sacrifice of 21 Feb martyrs either. BengaliHindu (talk) 16:18, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Family names doesn't matter at all and Wikipedia articles need proper sourcing for religious information. Like,

original research.Benfold (talk) 09:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete - delete serious POV with no reliable source Shrikanthv (talk) 07:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:25, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:25, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:25, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]