Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 May 13

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)

The one thing that the article says about its topic, that it's a form of uranium, is false. It isn't a form of uranium, it's a compound of three elements of which uranium is one. There isn't even an indication of significance for this possibly arbitrarily chosen compound. Delete for now unless someone makes at least a viable, and accurate, stub out of it. Largoplazo (talk) 12:04, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:19, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There is plenty of literature on this compound (see here). I've corrected the error and added two references. -- 120.19.181.150 (talk) 12:54, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- as it stands, this article is unverifiable, unsourced, and the minimal content is false. This compound is no more a form of uranium than methanol is a form of oxygen. From poking around a bit, I found a few sources talking about this compound having some interesting electron properties, but I am unconvinced that this would be sufficient for an article in a non-specialist's encyclopedia. Even if it is, there is no conceivable way any of this "content" could be used in a real article, so
  WP:TNT would apply. Reyk _YO! 12:54, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

There are sources, actually, and there are further articles on the compound in other reputable journals, so that

WP:NCHEM is satisfied. Furthermore, the current state of this Wikipedia article is not false (I presume you looked at it before I started editing). And I'm not sure why Wikipedia cannot have specialist articles. I thought it was supposed to. -- 120.19.181.150 (talk) 13:02, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep - Errors have been corrected in the article. Cited sources indicate notability. ~Kvng (talk) 13:17, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article that I nominated for deletion has been replaced with factual, sourced material. Largoplazo (talk) 15:17, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - lots of high quality academic papers show this is a thing. The fact that it is a specialist subject has nothing to do with notability. JMWt (talk) 15:18, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Regardless of the previous quality of the article, it's a notable topic. Pburka (talk) 19:26, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  ... and move to Uranium ruthenium silicide. I think we generally prefer English names for chemical compounds. Pburka (talk) 22:12, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The errors have been corrected, and citations added. --Dcirovic (talk) 21:58, 14 May 2016 (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. Nakon 03:07, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Characteristics of Epic Heroes

Characteristics of Epic Heroes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:NOTESSAY - appears to be done as part of a course - see Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/University of Missouri/CL HUM 3250 Epic (Spring 2016) Gbawden (talk) 06:50, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Regardless of being done for a school assignment, the question to ask is: is it a notable subject? Yes, it is a subject referred to in a number of scholarly works. Is the subject encyclopedic? Yes. Perhaps the article, as written, does not fit current Wikipedia standards for prose, reference style, and so forth... it does read a little like an essay, but these are problems that can be fixed without deleting the entire article. I do note that it seems to be well sourced, so that shouldn't even be a problem. Reword the thing to be in a more encyclopedic style, and we're golden. Fieari (talk) 07:14, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:33, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - regardless of the current content, the subject is notable and has been the subject of scholarly works including [11]. JMWt (talk) 15:22, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - However, the article needs to be integrated with pages of the similar topic. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 01:08, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I'm concerned because most of the information is sourced from a single book with a title similar to this article/essay, and thus would could have a
  oddly capitalized and that raises a second red flag. Bearian (talk) 19:45, 19 May 2016 (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. joe decker^talk 00:35, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Albert

Alex Albert (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

• Delete: I cannot find anything to support or substantiate his notability outside the bands he has been a member of, while he does have some merits with regards to
  general notability guidelines are concerned he does not have any independent coverage to merit a standalone article at this juncture.The Cross Bearer (talk | contribs) 05:58, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:33, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. Everything noteworthy is best noted at the band articles. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:59, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as although connected to those groups, he is still questionable for the needed solid independent notability and its improvements. SwisterTwister talk 07:34, 14 May 2016 (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. Nakon 03:08, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Doherty (footballer)

Kevin Doherty (footballer) (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)

Deleted by PROD previously. Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 20:36, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:38, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:38, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:38, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails
  WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 21:04, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep -- First, the prior PROD has little bearing, as Doherty has become manager of
  WP:NFOOTBALL. This is a blatant keep, with no disrespect intended to the nominator. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:25, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - Fails
  GNG
  . Keep - work on the article indicates that GNG is met. However, keep comments above are almost entirely wrong:

1. Becoming the manager of the team does not impact notability. Consensus is that the spirit of
   WP:NFOOTY
   is applicable to managers in the same way it is players.
2. Per
   WP:GHITS
   returning a significant number of search results does not indicate notability. Furthermore, 144 results is not significant, particularly when most of these are focussed on the club not the individual.
3. Comment on the League of Ireland not being fully professional is an agreed consensus. It does not preclude the creation of articles on players within that league, it merely insists that those players who do not have senior international caps demonstrate wider GNG. Far from being senseless long-held consensus is that this is in fact a sensible way of dealing with leagues that globally have a low profile.
4. This is very much an
   WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
   argument.
5. He never played for Liverpool's first team. The source in the article clearly shows he was a reserve team member only (something supported by the UEFA link provided above as well), this is insufficient for NFOOTY.
6. Whether Shelbourne is / was a fully professional team is irrelevant, NFOOTY is clear that it is the league that must be confirmed fully professional, the source provided mentions nothing of the professionalism of the club or the league and there is no inherent link between champions league participation and fully professional status.

Fenix down (talk) 08:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Look it up yourself please. Shelbourne was fully professional while he was playing on it. You can lockstep with the guideline, but it's quite wrong in this case and it listing fully professional leagues as of now, not as of in the past. Would you eliminate all football players from the past who played for teams that were fully professional but are not so now? Come on. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:26, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please take care to read what other editors have written more carefully. As I quite clearly stated, the nature of the club is irrelevant, it is the league that has to be deemed fully professional by consensus for a player to be judged notable based on NFOOTY. Furthermore, I would recommend you look at

WP:FPL a bit more closely. I am not sure where you are getting this "as of now" thing from. Israel and the USA have clear time constraints beyond which players are not notable per NFOOTY and a number of others have clear indications of a point in time after which players are deemed notable per NFOOTY. Although there has not been a discussion for some time, this pretty clearly demonstrated the generally semi-professional nature of the league a few years ago and I have not seen anything to indicate that has changed. Fenix down (talk) 13:11, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

• Please take care to read what I've written more carefully. Does that feel comfortable to you? Or, do you already feel antagonistic? I guess playing in UEFA Championship League isn't good enough? It is a Tier 1 competition. That alone, not to mention the large number of other qualifiers, passes this person over NFOOTY. As for the discussion you noted, there does not appear to be any particular consensus. Certainly the BBC felt they were fully professional. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:46, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite comfortable asking people to re-read what has been written when they make fundamental misunderstandings about what has been said as it doesn't aid discussion when people get the wrong end of the stick. Re the CL, unfortunately it is not enough, long standing consensus is that playing in the Champions league is insufficient when the player firstly has not played in the competition proper, merely the qualifying rounds, and secondly when that player has not competed in a match between two clubs from fully professional leagues. Again, you might wish to reread the linked discussion to full professionalism in Ireland as later sources such as this also from the BBC written ten days after the original one cited describes Shamrock Rovers as part-time, so not a fully professional league. From this, and other sources linked in the discussion, no consensus could be gained that the single comment in one BBC article was sufficient for FPL status, therefore the league is always considered to have had at least a partly semi-professional element. If you feel you have evidence to suggest otherwise, please take it to WT:FOOTY, it's always good to be able to expand the list. On this player though, I guess we will have to agree to disagree. Fenix down (talk) 14:09, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - He has not managed or played for a club in fully pro league, or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails
  WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:43, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Additional info/comment I've significantly expanded the article, including references to support a variety of things including his Tier 1 appearance, proving notability under
  WP:GNG; he is covered in multiple, independent secondary sources stretching from 1999 through to this year, as now proven by the multitude of citations on the article. I would also like to point out the presence of Category:Republic of Ireland football managers (101 pages), Category:Shelbourne F.C. managers (27 pages), Category:League of Ireland managers (188 pages)...all three of which cover positions that the opposition here seem to think do not qualify those pages for inclusion in Wikipedia. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:35, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

"Tier 1" in NFOOTY refers specifically to national team matches. This player has not featured for the national team. Fenix down (talk) 16:10, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• That isn't what the FIFA rules stipulate. I've actually got an e-mail out to FIFA regarding this very fact, just for confirmation. But, everything I've read to date indicates UEFA Champions League games, qualifying or regular, are Tier 1 matches. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:16, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Also, regardless of any failure of WP:NFOOTY claims, it's blatantly obvious this person passes
  WP:GNG standards, which NFOOTY itself acknowledges as an allowance if passed. There's news coverage about Doherty spanning 17 years from many independent secondary sources. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:49, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete Clear
  WP:NFOOTY failure (the guidelines are quite clear that it needs to be an international match – i.e. national team, not European competition). As for GNG, the article is clearly well referenced, but such is the level of coverage that football gets, it's easy to write a well referenced article on a player playing at level eight in England (as I did to illustrate this in a recent AfD), so unfortunately I'm not convinced by that argument. Number 57 19:33, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Perhaps you should request a special exception to
  WP:GNG is false. Thank you, at least, for acknowledging that it is clearly well referenced. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:40, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep Clear
  WP:NFOOTY pass. Played in League of Ireland, a top level national league, played in UEFA competitions, played for top four club in Ireland. I pick up wiff of anti-LOI prejudice here. DjlnDjln (talk) 19:54, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Have another read of NFOOTY, LOI is not there nor has it ever been. Nice agf too. Thanks. Fenix down (talk) 20:00, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @

WP:NFOOTY. It specifically requires playing or managing either international football (for a national team) or in a fully-professional league. The subject has done neither. There is possibly a valid argument to be made around the GNG, but it's very clear that he fails WP:NFOOTY. Number 57 20:01, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Sorry I disagree, are you really saying LOI is not notable. If so that just proves prejudice. DjlnDjln (talk) 20:08, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• And I have to disagree too; it isn't very clear he fails WP:NFOOTY. As I noted before, and has not been refuted by any sources, UEFA Champions League matches are by FIFA designation Tier 1 matches. Since he's played in such competitions, it's an NFOOTY pass. Quoting the FIFA regulations governing international matches; an international match is

a match between two teams belonging to different Members or a match involving a Scratch Team. For the purpose of authorisation, any match or competition played between two teams belonging to the same Member but in a Third Country shall be recognised as an International Match or competition

• You will note it says nothing about it being a national team. It goes on to say:

A tier 1 International Match shall mean any International Match in which both of the teams participating are the 'A' Representative Teams of the Members concerned

• Quoting from our own UEFA Champions League article, the UEFA Champions league;

is one of the most prestigious tournaments in the world and the most prestigious club competition in European football, played by the national league champion (and, for some nations, one or more runners-up) of each UEFA national association

• Note the fact of national league champions, and juxtapose that with the immediately preceding FIFA regs quote. Lastly:

A competition that contains at least one tier 1 International Match shall be classified as a tier 1 competition.

• I.e. if even one match in the competition is Tier 1, all matches in the competition are Tier 1. Reading this it becomes painfully obvious that UEFA Champions League is a FIFA Tier 1 competition. It does not require it be only national teams. They most emphatically can be club teams from member organizations...which Shelbourne F.C. was at the time that Doherty was playing for them. Hell, he even started for them in UEFA CL. I think I've proven UEFA CL is Tier 1. Unless someone can prove it's something other than Tier 1, this is a clear pass of WP:NFOOTY. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:19, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is very clear. FIFA define a Tier 1 match is "any International Match in which both of the teams participating are the “A” Representative Teams of the Members concerned"; a Tier 2 match is "a tier 2 International Match shall mean any International Match involving one “A” Representative Team, any other Representative Team, a Domestic Team or the first team of a Club Team that participates in the highest division of a Member." Therefore the highest level that a game involving a club team (such as Shelbourne) can be is a Tier 2 match. “A” Representative Team means the national team.

More importantly, the guideline is designed specifically to refer to matches between national teams only. If you did manage to find a technicality to get around the intended meaning, it would only result in the guideline being amended to stop anyone else wikilawyering (i.e. Asserting that the technical interpretation of the policies and guidelines should override the underlying principles they express) in the same way. Number 57 20:31, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I would appreciate it if you would drop the accusations of wikilawyering. If you can't refute me without insulting me, then just stop.
• You are ignoring the quote I provided where it notes that any competition that involves at least one Tier 1 match defines all matches in that competition as Tier 1. It doesn't matter if Shelbourne is a Tier -100000000 team. They competed in a Tier 1 competition. That makes whatever match they played a Tier 1 match. Since
  you should know better. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:49, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

A Tier 1 match can only be a match between the "“A” Representative Teams of the Members concerned" – i.e. the national teams. National teams do not compete in the UEFA Champions League, therefore no match in the Champions League can be a Tier 1 match.

I'm sorry you don't like the claims of wikilayering, but it's blatantly what you're doing. We have had this guideline for years, and everyone knows it's designed to refer to international matches, not continental competitions. Number 57 21:12, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Fine. Shall I begin assaulting your character then in a lame attempt to buttress my argument? You make your argument incredibly weak by attacking me. If you can't refute me without insulting me, you have no argument. As to the point you're trying to make; the FIFA rules make it very clear that a team does not have to be a national team. In fact, the rules do not even contain the phrase "national team". I don't know where people are getting this idea that it has to be the Ireland National Team. It's false, and FIFA agrees with that. I quoted the rules. I'm sorry you disagree with them, but they are the rules. I'm still waiting for you to prove the UEFA Champions League is not a Tier 1 competition. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:23, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't insulted your character, I've just pointed out that you are using an inappropriate form of argument. Nor do I feel that my argument is weak – I think it's fairly irrefutable, but we seem to be into

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT

territory now, so I'll state it once again and then get on with something productive. The closing admin will make their own judgement.

So, for the last time, the UEFA Champions League is not a Tier 1 competition because it does not include A representative teams; this is FIFA's terminology for full national team, as opposed to U21 teams or club teams. And if you really need proof that an A representative team is not the same thing as a club team, the FIFA regulations specifically defines club team as a separate thing (see, for instance, page 6 – "Members, to which a Representative Team, Club Team or Domestic Team...". The guidance is also very clear that the highest level a "Club Team" can participate is a Tier 2 match (see pages 8–9). Number 57 21:33, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Well obviously you are in
  WP:NFOOTY is worded, then stop accusing people of wikilawyering and go get it changed. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:55, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The definition of a member is "an association that has been admitted into membership of FIFA by the FIFA Congress." Associations are national FAs, and Republic of Ireland's association is the FAI. The League of Ireland is clearly not an association for the purposes of this argument. And the point about "Club Teams" not being able to participate in a Tier 1 matches still stands. Number 57 22:12, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Interesting argument, however invalid. I grant you almost had me :) Shelbourne was the association's 'A' representative at UEFA Champions League for the games where Doherty appeared. League of Ireland and Football Association of Ireland are not disconnected organizations. Shelbourne was FAI's representative for the 2002-03 UEFA CL. If you dispute that, then perhaps you can show what other team FAI sent from Ireland (there was none). Where I think you might be able to convince me here is making a claim that UEFA CL is not in any way connected to or administered by FIFA. Since UEFA itself is part of FIFA [13], I doubt that is the case. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:36, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I don't think there's any fact-based argument that will convince you, so I'll give up. The closing admin is welcome to ask for clarification at

WP:FOOTY if they have any doubts about the proper interpretation of the guideline. In the meantime, I have asked other football project members to give their views on your interpretation. Number 57 22:42, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Also, to head off any argument that the matches Shelbourne F.C. participated in which saw Doherty play were not Tier 1 matches, only the competition was (which FIFA disagrees with anyway, but I digress):

• Shelbourne F.C. was the top representative ("A") team from the League of Ireland (LOI) for the season that qualified them for UEFA Champions League (UEFA CL), having won the
  2001–02 League of Ireland
  premier division, that association's top level.
• Hibernians F.C. was the top representative ("A") team from the Maltese Premier League, having won the 2001–02 Maltese Premier League qualifying them for the UEFA CL, that association's top level as well.
• [14] - page 4, definition 6: (so we can establish that Member is not Team) "Member: an association that has been admitted into membership of FIFA by the FIFA Congress". Both associations were members of FIFA for the respective years.
• [15] - page 4, definition 4: "International Match: a match between two teams belonging to different Members". Since both teams were from different associations, it was an international match.
• [16] - page 4, definition 5: "International 'A' Match: a match for which both Members field their first Representative Team ('A' Representative Team).
• [17] - page 8, first paragraph under 7: "For the purpose of these regulations, a tier 1 International Match shall mean any International Match in which both of the teams participating are the 'A' Representative Teams of the Members concerned"

Since both associations fielded their first representative team, the match was by FIFA definitions a Tier 1 match. The claim that this has something to do with national teams is provably false. The FIFA definitions do not contain any requirement that the teams be the "national team" of their respective countries, only that they be the 'A' representative team from the association in question. In fact, the rules even note that two teams can be in the same association but be from different countries. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:36, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In FIFA parlance, the term "representative team" refers to national teams. There cannot be a "top representative team" from a domestic league, nor can a club team be a "representative team". The "A" terminology is from the era before youth national teams (like U-23 etc.) becoming commonplace, when national reserve/feeder/development teams were known as "B" teams. I believe some countries continued having "B" teams into the 2000s, but most have been shut down in favor of full youth national team scheduling. --Sesameball^Talk 00:08, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I believe Hammersoft has misinterpreted the FIFA regulations. International “A” Match: a match for which both [associations that have been admitted into membership of FIFA by the FIFA Congress.] field their first Representative Team (“A” Representative Team). It implies first choice selection of the national football association. As above, Tier 2 explicitly mentions club teams and applies to FA representative teams (national teams) vs. club teams. This week, New Zealand's national team are playing against Western Pride FC, Redlands United and Brisbane City. Those would be considered Tier 2 according to the regulations. TheBigJagielka (talk) 00:19, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• As noted above, the FIFA regulations state nothing about national teams. The phrase is not even mentioned. Anything concluding they are referring only to national teams is pure speculation. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:03, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's because FIFA uses the term "representative team" for what we commonly refer to as a national team. --Sesameball^Talk 03:25, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm quite confident that if FIFA meant to say national team, they had the capability to do so. Yet, they didn't. The absence of "national team" from the FIFA rules is conspicuous. Attempt to modify the rules to conclude "national team" is wrong. If you want to start a discussion to modify NFOOTY to track with you believe it should say, please by all means feel free. But, as is, the FIFA rules are unequivocally absent of any mention of "national team". --Hammersoft (talk) 15:17, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course FIFA does not mention the term "national team" because that's what is meant when they say "representative team". --Sesameball^Talk 21:21, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• If it is what they meant, they would have said so. They don't. As I've said, concluding they mean "national team" when they make no mention of national team is simply wild speculation. There's no evidence to support the conclusion. Sorry. If I'm wrong, perhaps you can point me to where they say "national team"? --Hammersoft (talk) 23:57, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, because "national team" is the colloquial, common name for what FIFA calls a "representative team". The fact that FIFA doesn't define "national team" supports my point. There is no reason for FIFA to mention the colloquialism "national team", because that's what they mean by "representative team". That is also why they mention "representative teams" as well as "club teams or domestic teams", because those are different things. --Sesameball^Talk 02:26, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment - I hadn't read through the massive text wall above until now, and above all I'm befuddled by your insistence that a FIFA member association's "representative team" can be a club team from that member association's domestic league (I made a comment on this earlier). Even a quick perusal of FIFA bylaws reveals that many of the FIFA regulations on representative teams cannot be explained if they refer to club teams (especially those on eligibility). I really think it'd be helpful if you just take a good look at the FIFA regs because it seems quite clear what FIFA means by a "member association" and a "representative team", and it's not what you're trying so desperately to assert above. --Sesameball^Talk 03:03, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The argument above misses the point that guidelines are descriptions of established consensus, rather than prescriptive rules. The intended meaning of point 1 of
  WP:NFOOTY has always been describe the consensus that senior internationals are notable. Here, for example, a fair amount of text was removed from point 1 specifically to avoid making it sound like it applied to club matches. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:33, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - Reasonably "longform" coverage in national newspapers like [18], [19], [20] would seem to be in
  GNG territory. 90.210.157.103 (talk) 20:15, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

— 90.210.157.103 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:34, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Doesn't matter. It's not a vote, it's a discussion. He's done some very good work on the article. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:19, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• It's absurd now I mean really, we're up to 33 35 references now across a very broad range of news outlets. How absurd does this have to get before it's speedy kept? Regardless of the NFOOTY argument, this is __blatantly a
  WP:GNG pass__, and there's nothing that failing NFOOTY can do to change that (even if it did fail NFOOTY). --Hammersoft (talk) 17:04, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, now. Initially there wasn't evidence of enough coverage to make it clear the subject met
  WP:BIO; now there is. And I'm not counting references, I'm looking at their quality. The three picked out by the IP editor above in particular (well, the two I can see: I haven't got HighBeam any more) are lengthy pieces in national newspapers about Mr Doherty, not his club(s). Which added to the ongoing general coverage over approaching 20 years makes it pretty clear that the subject does meet the general notability requirements. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• References, for scale I readily grant and heartily agree that quality of references matter, and quantity does not. Still, I think it worth noting that this article we're considering deleting now has more references than 1982 FIFA World Cup, 1986 FIFA World Cup, 1990 FIFA World Cup, and 1994 FIFA World Cup. When those articles on world tournaments have less references than this article about a single person, at some point you have to recognize the absurdity of deleting this article. If that many independent news sources are speaking about him, there can be no policy based justification for deleting this article. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:36, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Seriously? After a week, with 12 registered users commenting, 5500+ words of discussion, the inclusion of the AfD at
  WP:FOOTYDEL, Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Football, Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Sportspeople, Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Ireland, the addition of literally dozens of citations across a broad range of news sources spanning 18 years...and you think there's doubt here? --Hammersoft (talk) 14:28, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per the crystal-clear consensus above that the subject passes the general notability guideline, so the anglocentric and male-centric
  WP:NFOOTY guideline happily doesn't come into it. I initially shared Hammersoft's surprise that this was relisted, but then when I saw who relisted it I was rather less surprised. Why do we put up with editors whose contributions to deletion discussions are no better than random? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:50, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - passes GNG, thus NFOOTY is moot. However, I have to say that seeing this discussion relisted is not a surprise to me. Oftentimes long discussions lead to relisting because of the myriad policies and guidelines which are put forth, and the admins' job is to determine which argument(s) is/are stronger and more clearly rooted; if there is no clear consensus, then relisting can be appropriate. I must also express some disbelief at Hammersoft for pushing the insistence that a club team could represent a national association when the FIFA regulations clearly differentiate between a representative team and a club/scratch team. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 12:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• As I've stated before, it's unclear. You feel it's clear, others do too. I don't really care. Reality; the FIFA guidelines do not state "national" anywhere. Perhaps among those who follow FIFA every day there's a presumption that is treated as a given, maybe even rightfully. Again, I don't really care. What I do care is that it is not specifically stipulated, and that lack of stipulation is echoed in NFOOTY here, which creates a myriad of problems. The presumption is problematic itself, regardless of whether it is correct or not. I do agree that the GNG requirements trump NFOOTY in this case. Failure to pass GNG can not kill a NFOOTY pass, and neither can a NFOOTY failure kill a GNG pass. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Fails
  WP:GNG. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 07:49, 19 May 2016 (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. joe decker^talk 00:35, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mircea Badut

Mircea Badut (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's a slight problem here: no independent sources. We have entries from the publishing houses that have put out this individual's work ([21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26]), a sale page from a computer repair firm ([27]), a couple of Google Books entries for his books ([28], [29]) and a couple of search results, which are never sources ([30], [31]). "Significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject"? Not so much. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:37, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:55, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:36, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The only plausible case for notability is through his books, but being a prolific author isn't enough by itself. We don't have any independent and reliably published reviews of the books, and worldcat shows them (at least the ones I checked) to be held only by low single-digit numbers of libraries. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:18, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, does not appear to pass either
  WP:AUTHOR. His engineering/informatics work seems to have almost no citability, and, as DE notes, there do not seem to be any published reviews of his fiction books, and the library holdings for those books are sparse. Nsk92 (talk) 13:23, 19 May 2016 (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.

InfoTrac

InfoTrac (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)

Uncited for nearly a decade. Holypod (talk) 02:53, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Existed mainly in the pre-Internet age (I remember the old InfoTrac computer at my local library), so caveat that most of the sourcing for the service is probably existing in earlier articles and sources;
  chatter) 02:35, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• This is very obviously not uncited, so the nomination statement is untrue. Without a better rationale for deletion to respond to it's difficult to have a proper discussion. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:37, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep per an errant deletion rational that does not argue non-notability, but simply complains that a
  WP:BEFORE is encouraged before judgments. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:50, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep. The fact that
  EBSCO). Recommend temporary or indefinite blocks as appropriate if User:Holypod continues to make such spurious nominations based on obvious factual misrepresentations. --Coolcaesar (talk) 21:55, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - Perhaps the current article needs a lot of work as well as more citations being placed. That doesn't change the fact that the subject is notable. I'd also like to point out that the service has somewhat recently gone through expansion-related enhancements, so it's not like it's an obscure, defunct product of some kind. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:57, 16 May 2016 (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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) LibStar (talk) 18:20, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Payton

David Payton (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:BIO. ambassadors are not inherently notable. those wanting to keep should show actual coverage covering this individual in depth LibStar (talk) 02:52, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:43, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:43, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep While ambassadors are not default notable, administrators of places like Tokelau are.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:11, 14 May 2016 (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 Snow Keep (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 20:06, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Medical Committee for Human Rights

Medical Committee for Human Rights (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)

Clearly promotional, largely unsourced copy Holypod (talk) 02:51, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - It was an influential and notable group. Martin Luther King Jr. personally addressed their convention in 1966. The group has been mentioned by reputable journals such as this one, and I've done a bit of editing of the article myself to add details. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:24, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:46, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:46, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:46, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep for precisely the reasons User:CoffeeWithMarkets articulates, with thanks to User:CoffeeWithMarkets for improving sourcing on this small but significant (it's not like medical care was available to civil rights protestors in Southern cities, this outfit stepped in) organization that was a significant part of the Civil Rights Movement back in the day. User:Holypod came upon a brief and under-sourced article, and assumed that it was "promotional", but might now withdraw - or any editor coming to the page can simply close it. There is no valid argument for deletion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:24, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep With the improvements and sourcing additions made by CoffeeWithMarkets, now a
  WP:GNG pass.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 19:01, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per CoffeeWIthMarkets and their improvements, and the fact
  chatter) 02:43, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep -- This sounds like a significant participant in the civil rights movement of the 1960s and 1970s. Since it is now defunct (and has been for about 30 years), it is hardly promotional, since there is nothing existing to promote. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:30, 14 May 2016 (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. Nakon 03:09, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick M. McCarthy (surgeon)

Patrick M. McCarthy (surgeon) (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)

Promotional resume, clear COI contributions Holypod (talk) 02:50, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:44, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:44, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as a copyright violation from this.
  Talk) 01:29, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

ETA: I do think there is a case for notability due to his citation counts if the article were ever recreated without the non-neutral assertions and without the copyright violations. Clinical medicine citations are high and it looks like he's been credited for some big studies with a ton of authors, but even if you only look at the citations in GS where he's the first author, there are still several of those that have hundreds of citations each.

Talk) 01:34, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Striking this vote as the issue was fixed. The problematic material was reinserted this morning by an editor who said he was working on behalf of McCarthy and Northwestern, but it should be easy to monitor for any further copyvio problems.

Talk) 22:00, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

• I've reverted and revdeleted the copyvios (the one mentioned above was added in Cbarker1's first edit; the two prior edits by Marieraja were to add and then remove a different one directly from a press release). This got rid of most of the promotionalism as a happy side effect. I don't have an opinion on the article otherwise. —
  Cryptic 03:44, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Based on the named professorship at Northwestern, which is by itself sufficient to meet WP:PROF. And very clearly an expert in his field: his two most cited works are multi-center consensus documents, with over 1000 citations each, but that shouldn't really count. Of the ordinary papers, there are 71 papers with over 10 citation, with 28 of them having citations over 200, Even in the high citation field of biomedicine, this is a remarkable record. Though promotional articles on borderline notable people should often just be deleted, promotional articles on really notable people should be fixed, even if it takes rewriting. DGG ( talk ) 23:13, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as DGG's comments are convincing, this is keepable. SwisterTwister talk 23:25, 14 May 2016 (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 Snow Keep (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 20:00, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Blue Knight (film)

The Blue Knight (film) (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)

Three years and still no references Holypod (talk) 02:45, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There are sources available: [32] from the
  Pittsburgh Press, and [36] from Time Out London. Also, this article from Variety says Holden won an Emmy for his performance. There are production details covered in this biography of Holden published by McFarland & Company. So, I'd say that it's a pass. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:14, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I expanded the article and added these sources. I think it makes a much better claim for notability now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:55, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• An easy keep, even before NinjaRobotPirate's fine improvements, given that the article already listed the easily-verified Emmys.
  WP:BEFORE is instructive here.--Arxiloxos (talk) 04:05, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Being unref'd is not a valid reason for deletion (see
  WP:BEFORE). Expansion and sourcing has now been done to boot. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:09, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:46, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:46, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep of a very poor (sorry) nomination of a multiple award-winning quite notable film of a whole slew of notable actors.
  due diligence would have showed the nom his error in judgement. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:32, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy keep I frown on "delete this because it existed before the Internet and I'm too lazy to pursue
  chatter) 02:39, 14 May 2016 (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 Technical Keep considering this has enough for an article and this would also need familiar attention this altogether there are currently no concerns for deletion (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 20:11, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Volkswagen Foundation

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

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

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

Unsourced article. Holypod (talk) 02:43, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:41, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:41, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Of note is that "unsourced article" is not a particularly valid rationale for deletion; see
  WP:DEL-REASON. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:43, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - I can't find many extensive articles in English, but there seems to be at least one history of the foundation published in German. JMWt (talk) 15:28, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A very large, influential non-profit organization. The German version of the article makes a clear case for the historical and current notability of the organization and cites some book sources; many more are evident in the usual Google searches for the German name of the organization (see above). --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:37, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep per errant deletion rationale. An arguable notable topic being unsourced is
  WP:NEXIST show noability. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:06, 15 May 2016 (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.

Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning

Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning (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)

Barely referenced, clear COI page Holypod (talk) 02:36, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]