Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 31 July 2 August >

Purge server cache

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

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

Corey Fogelmanis

Corey Fogelmanis (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD deleted. Not a notable actor per WP:NACTOR. Only two minor roles and listed in a recurring role for a recently started series. Even with series recurring role does not have multiple significant roles. Fails WP:GNG as has received no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Any mention in sources is passing mention in stories about Girl Meets World and in a cast bio on the website for a short. Geraldo Perez ( talk) 23:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:40, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:40, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete fails WP:GNG, fails WP:ENT, for lack of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Too young to have garnered the necessary experience and coverage. WP:TOOSOON. -- Bejnar ( talk) 22:12, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Too soon for a bio at this time. I don't see any non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 00:30, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, per above in RE: too soon for a bio and fails WP:ENT, the only links are to IMDB and twitter. This individual has not done enough notable work. Maybe later in his career? Jab843 ( talk) 03:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per the others, fails WP:ENT. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 12:40, 8 August 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Creative industry in Brazil

Creative industry in Brazil (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

  • Comment Not to impugn the nominator's judgement, but was the edit summary of the article creator This is the translation of a PT Wikipedia article" missed?   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 00:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply
    • No, this was not missed. But perhaps you have missed that user Sistema Firjan has written an article that is mainly about the company/company products of Firjan. The Banner  talk 20:02, 3 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and rigorously cleanup - I see no validity in the deletion rationale of 'advertising' which can be resolved by rigorous editorial action. It is certainly a poor article but the subject is clearly notable and there are a whole bunch of supporting sources and more are available. The fact that the creator may have a COI is a matter for cleanup and for closely examining the content, and the other apparently promotional article that he created is being separately considered. When we have a clearly encyclopaedic concept, we should be cleaning and improving (or perhaps robustly stubbing), not deleting. The Whispering Wind ( talk) 22:47, 3 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep WP:COI is a serious problem, but not a valid reason for deletion. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 12:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC) reply
    • I know that but the nomination is for advertising, not COI. The Banner  talk 20:40, 8 August 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Joseph Fadelle

Joseph Fadelle (  | 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)

Fails WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR. Only published single book, which has published 50k copies. Can't find anything on Google Iraq. scope_creep talk 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:35, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:35, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:35, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:35, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:35, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: his book was translated into at least 6 languages; there are various references in French media and probably also in other countries; he is frequently interviewed by French media and invited to talk in conferences in France. He is not particularly known in Iraq especially under this name. Peter17 ( talk) 06:45, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply
What are the other references and any names attached to him. scope_creep talk 16:59 02 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Keep French Wikipedia points us to some sources, e.g., [3] and [4] that may help satisfy WP:BASIC. Searching for "Mohammed Moussaoui" may turn up others. 24.151.10.165 ( talk) 21:00, 2 August 2014 (UTC) This French book review is quite in depth. 24.151.10.165 ( talk) 21:05, 2 August 2014 (UTC) French Wikipedia's article on his book Le Prix à payer (livre) contains additional references such as [5], [6] and [7]. Fadelle is the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources per WP:BASIC. 24.151.10.165 ( talk) 23:31, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep It would really be better to get English sources, but that's not an absolute requirement for passing the notability test. This seems more like a poorly written article without proper formatting of sources than deletion material. MezzoMezzo ( talk) 04:22, 3 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- 50,000 copies is a substantial number for a Christian book. His story of fleeing from being murdered by his family is regreatably typcial for those who leave Islam. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:12, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. Bbb23 ( talk) 23:03, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Ariana Carly

Ariana Carly (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

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

Rajesh More

Rajesh More (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Minor fashionista who works as costume designer in Telugu film industry. Fails WP:BIO scope_creep 22:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete • Fails WP:ANYBIO. CutestPenguin { talk • contribs} 12:53, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete . Per nomination . No significance contributions or achievements. Most links only have passing mentions - SaHiL ( talk) 10:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Per nomination. No significant coverage in the sources provided, and I can't seem to find any, either. Unfortunately, his first and last names are both rather common, making sorting sources a right royal pain in the arse. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 12:50, 8 August 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Michael Britton

Michael Britton (  | 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 and WP:POLITICIAN scope_creep talk 21:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:17, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • As usual, unelected candidates for office do not qualify for Wikipedia articles just for being candidates, per WP:NPOL. And even if he wins election in October he still wouldn't qualify for inclusion here, because St. Catharines (pop. ~130K) is not in the narrow range of internationally famous metropolitan megacities for which we actually extend notability to the city councillors. Plus for bonus points, the article is entirely unsourced — and as I've said all too frequently of late, I have a significant tendency to suspect conflict of interest editing by the campaign manager when a brochure about an unelected candidate shows up as its creator's first-ever contribution to Wikipedia. Delete with fire. Bearcat ( talk) 23:20, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. A clear-cut case. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 01:13, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Per the excellent argument by Bearcat. The one source is primary, so there is not sufficient indication of notability. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 13:10, 8 August 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Glamarus

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ( Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica 1000 04:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Customer Service System

Customer Service System (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:19, 25 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:19, 25 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:19, 25 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep—A quick google search turned up
  • A long article in New Scientist. [1]
  • A book [2] which describes the CSS in great detail over several chapters. While the book is part of the BT Telecommunications Series, the publisher is independent of BT.
  • A (likely) peer-reviewed publication [3] in the BT Technology Journal (reprinted in the above book).
  • An substantial article [4] in The Independent.
  • Another substantial article [5] in The Guardian (needs verification, as this is a copy of the original story).
I'm seeing several more passing references in the software engineering literature. The system appears to have been unusually large (and unusually long-lived), and enough people wrote about it at length that I think we can create a pretty decent article. A move to Customer service software (BT) might be in order if the article survives the AfD. Lesser Cartographies ( talk) 09:20, 25 July 2014 (UTC) reply

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

  1. ^ a b Conner, Steve (23 January 1986). "Your computerised phone bill is delayed". New Scientist. 109 (1492): 28.
  2. ^ a b West, S.; Norris, M.; Stockman, S., eds. (1997). Computing Systems for Global Telecommunications (first ed.). Chapman & Hall. ISBN  0412825406.
  3. ^ a b Harrison, P. F. (January 1997). "Customer Service System—past, present and future". BT Technology Journal. 15 (1). London: 29–45.(subscription required)
  4. ^ a b Bowen, David (19 December 1994). "Network: A real know-it-all at BT". The Independent.
  5. ^ a b Neesham, Claire (31 May 1990). "BT express replaces the shunters". The Guardian. Manchester. p. 31.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker talk 20:37, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Deepak Singh

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:Notability, the article lacks General notability guideline as well as references given in the article does not have Significant coverage. CutestPenguin { talk • contribs} 06:56, 25 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker talk 20:35, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Hi-tech export

Hi-tech export (  | 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 company. Available sources amount to mentions in passing, but do not add up to WP:CORPDEPTH. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 13:34, 24 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:54, 24 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:54, 24 July 2014 (UTC) reply
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 20:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 06:40, 10 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Carmelita Little Turtle

Carmelita Little Turtle (  | 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:GNG. OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:19, 24 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:51, 24 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:51, 24 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:51, 24 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker talk 20:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, I found some sources:
    • Tharp, Paula E. Shooting constructed realities: the self-defining art of Native American women photographers Shelley Niro and Carm Little Turtle and selected poets. Diss. University of Oklahoma, 1997.
    • Biographical entries in:
      • Rushing III, W. Jackson, ed. Native American art in the Twentieth Century: makers, meanings, histories. Routledge, 2013.
      • Hillstrom, Laurie Collier, and Kevin Hillstrom. "Carm, Little Turtle." Contemporary Women Artists. Detroit: St. James, 1999. 405-06. Print.
      • Congdon, Kristin G., and Kara Kelley Hallmark. Twentieth Century United States Photographers: A Student's Guide. Greenwood Publishing Group, 2008. (possibly, I can not read the full work)
    • A many page interview in Abbott, Lawrence, ed. I stand in the center of the good: interviews with contemporary Native American artists. U of Nebraska Press, 1994.
And so appears to meet WP:GNG. Antrocent ( ♫♬) 21:08, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
@ Antrocent: Mention is not enough. OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:04, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply
@ Arxiloxos: There are many thousands of profiles on highbeam that fails WP:GNG, there might have been mention of this person but it is still not enough for passing WP:GNG. OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:06, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply
These are not "mentions". The Contemporary Authors listing (and the sources mentioned by Antrocent) confirm that she has been the focus of substantive coverage (see e.g. I Stand in the Center of the Good: Interviews with Contemporary Native American Artists ( University of Nebraska Press, 1994) [10] and has been collected in multiple notable museums, thus passes WP:CREATIVE. -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 16:50, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Trafford Sub Aqua Club

Trafford Sub Aqua Club (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC) reply

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker talk 20:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Mitgift

Mitgift (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:39, 23 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:39, 23 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker talk 20:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - The band itself seems to be susceptible to AfD. The article does not provide anything to suggest that this album is notable.-- Rpclod ( talk) 02:41, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Žan Benedičič

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

  • To top that, he's just signed for Leeds United on loan. -- Mr. Mario ( talk) 06:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Žan Benedičič (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 19:54, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:23, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:23, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:23, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Capri Centre Mall

Capri Centre Mall (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
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. Spinning Spark 01:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Royal City Centre

Royal City Centre (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:19, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

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

Yaohan Centre

Yaohan Centre (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

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

  • Delete Google search failed to turn up reference which would satisfy WP:N. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:46, 10 August 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Letter to a CES Director

Letter to a CES Director (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Virality isn't notability, but I did add a hostile source (Christensen) which also lists the work as 'viral'. Darmokand ( talk) 05:03, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:17, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply

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

    • LOL Are you Jeremy? You're the author of the article too. Who do you think you're fooling? Tkfy7cf ( talk) 05:29, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply
No, Tk, I have absolutely no ties to the book's author. I learned about it when it was featured in a 3-hr in-depth interview on John Dehlin's show Mormon Stories. -- Darmokand ( talk) 11:48, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply
For what it's worth, FairMormon isn't a wiki, it's a private organization that happens to use MediaWiki software to host their organization's statments. But it's not a true "anyone can edit" wiki-- we can use it as a WP:RS for the views of FairMormon. -- Darmokand ( talk) 21:49, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Point taken that this is a private wiki by authorized FairMormon editors. I'll change my vote (can I do that?) to weak indifference. —— Rich jj ( talk) 22:36, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Only blogs and forums talk about this letter, so not enough sources to make it notable. Frmorrison ( talk) 21:18, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply
The Interpreter (journal), Mormon Stories Podcast, Salt Lake Tribune story and FairMormon should all qualify as "coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". -- Darmokand ( talk) 21:44, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply
I agree that these are independent, and probably sufficient, though not a long or impressive list. I read WP:GNG again and it seems the bar is fairly low. Interpreter is probably the best as an online journal that can also do print issues (or by the article). FairMormon and Mormon Stories are probably good sources, recognizing their respective biases. The SL Trib one is really a blog post about the LCS Business College spamming, and I thought the author was Peggy Fletcher Stack (who is shown in the header), but the article appears to be signed by "Pamela Manson". I often like print sources by traditional institutions (newspapers, academic journals, large magazines or publishing houses), but these sources are fine, just not ideal. And earlier I muddied the waters with blogs, but the authors, Jeff Lindsay and Brian C. Hales, are recognized notable figures in Mormon apologetics. —— Rich jj ( talk) 22:36, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply
An open letter was written criticizing a particular theology, a couple websites opposed to the theology picked it up, and then a couple websites supporting the theology (unofficial volunteer websites) responded to the letter's arguments. Nothing notable about the letter or the events surrounding it from what I can see, unless you consider spamming a few hundred people with the letter a notable event. Hence, this article can only reiterate the contents of the letter, which is WP:NOT what Wikipedia is about ("...articles on works of non-fiction, including documentaries, research books and papers, religious texts, and the like, should contain more than a recap or summary of the works' contents" WP:INDISCRIMINATE). — Eustress 03:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Delete Doesn't look like it satisfies WP:GNG. The only two references I can find demonstrating its notability are two links to Mormon online journals. The Salt Lake Tribune article is a pretty significant independent source, but there's a grand total of one sentence dedicated to the subject of this article. Karzelek ( talk) 22:45, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete IMO this doesn't satisfy the "significant coverage" criteria of WP:GNG, which means at this point it is extremely difficult to make this any more than a summary-only description of the work. Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball, so unless and until the Letter gets significant coverage in independent sources or has been shown to have a significant impact, then I don't think it crosses the notability threshold. -- FyzixFighter ( talk) 16:45, 9 August 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spinning Spark 01:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Jessica Clark (writer)

Jessica Clark (writer) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:15, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:15, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:15, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Inadequate sources. Substantial career achievement is expected for a Wikipedia BLP. Not the case here. Xxanthippe ( talk) 22:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC). reply
  • Delete Unreferenced BLP. No indication that the subject satisfies the notability guidelines. Safiel ( talk) 05:29, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment What is the difference between Head editor and Executive editor. According to WP:NACADEMICS, we are suppose to keep anyone who has served as a head editor.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:24, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment She was chief editor of a magazine, as opposed to a journal. That MIGHT confer notability, but under a different notability standard than WP:NACADEMICS. Even so, the article is entirely unsourced and unless somebody can place some reliable sources, I would not be able to change my stance from delete. The lack of BLP sources is enough on its own to require deletion of the article at this time. If the article is sourced by reliable sources that indicate notability, I will reconsider. Safiel ( talk) 17:39, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply
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) NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 10:41, 8 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Meadowmont, North Carolina

Meadowmont, North Carolina (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable small community. The sources listed include no third-party reliable sources, so WP:GNG is not met.

The same set of sources was assessed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meadowmont Village, where the article Meadowmont Village was deleted. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 19:10, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply

  • Keep The Meadowmont is a notable community not only in that it contains within its boundaries a property listed on the National Register of Historic Places by the National Park Service of the U.S. Dept. of the Interior, but is also a complete community hosting part of the University of North Carolina, residential areas, shopping areas, offices, and hotels, and plays a significant part in the lives of the people who live, work, study, and visit there. While the article did borrow the sources of the now-deleted Meadowmont Village (essentially a shopping center within Meadowmont) article, it now incorporates an additional link to the Meadowmont House's official listing on the National Register of Historic Place's website. That website is specifically dedicated to identifying properties that are generally notable in the history of the United States after meeting stringent qualifications as arbited by a cabinet-level agency of the United States government and certainly meets Wikipedia's general notability requirements. A community that incorporates a site that is generally notable is also generally notable. Larry Grossman ( talk) 19:50, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • I've now added an additional link to an article discussing the Meadowmont House from the "N&O" ( News & Observer), the regional daily newspaper of North Carolina's Research Triangle area, which is another independent, reliable source meeting Wikipedia's standards. Larry Grossman ( talk) 20:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
    @ Larry Grossman: it would be better for you to have explicitly disclosed that you are the article's creator. The two sources which you have added consist of one broken link [16] and an unlinked reference to a newspaper article with neither page number or article title. Without a link or other info, editor's can't verify the newspaper source, nor determine whether it meets the tests set out in WP:GNG.
    Even if the sources can be verified, they may be evidence of the notability of that house, but not of the surrounding area. So there are still no independent reliable sources which could evidence the notability of the community which you claim surrounds the house. I was not aware of any policy or guideline to support the claim that community that incorporates a site that is generally notable is also generally notable. Is that just your opinion, Larry, or do you have evidence that this a consensus view?
    It would help considerably if Larry would take the time to study WP:N, and recognise that the commentary in the first sentence of his keep !vote (that it "plays a significant part in the lives of the people who live, work, study, and visit there") is irrelevant to an AFD discussion: it confuses the notion of importance with that of notability. --- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 23:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Thank you, BrownHairedGirl. Yes, I am the article's creator. I'll review the notability guidelines you mentioned over the next few days and improve the article to meet them if that can be done. In the meantime, I'd appreciate if deletion could be deferred until I've had a few days to digest the guidelines and apply them. ...and I apologize for the broken link. I created it by searching the NPS's website to the page that lists the Meadowmont House as a historical property but it looks like that a dynamic link that expires, so I'll need to find a fixed link that others can pull up, and that will be my first improvement task. Larry Grossman ( talk) 01:04, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply

I've now added the title and page number reference to the article in N&O Profiling the Meadowmont House. Larry Grossman ( talk) 01:32, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply

I've now fixed the link to the National Park Service's website for their National Register of Historic Places. You can now find the Meadowmont House's listing by going to http://www.nps.gov/nr/research/data_downloads/Main.xlsx and then searching on reference numer: 85001554. Larry Grossman ( talk) 05:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC


Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Found a good amount of significant secondary coverage here and here and here. This was after only a few seconds of looking. -- Oakshade ( talk) 01:46, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

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

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

Old discussion from VfD

Discussion concluded and article kept on May 28, 2004

From Cleanup: Europe, the Middle East and Africa - dict. def. (I moved this to vfd from cleanup and fully support its deletion - SimonP)

  • Delete. All geographic articles are on their own pages at Wikipedia (e.g. Europe is at Europe.) Who would put all these at one article?? 66.32.80.15 01:11, 21 May 2004 (UTC) reply
    • Google it, it's not intended as a goegraphical article. It's a commonly used abbreviation. -- Starx 02:37, 21 May 2004 (UTC) reply
  • It is redirected from EMEA, maybe it should be merged into that article and deleted afterwards? -- till we ☼☽ | Talk 22:25, 21 May 2004 (UTC) reply
    • I don't understand what you want done. How do we merge something into a redirect? - SimonP 20:57, May 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I've expanded it slightly. Not a dicdef as I understand it (i.e. I would expect to find this defined here, not in Wiktionary). -- sjorford 14:19, 25 May 2004 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Nothing in here that couldn't be found out from looking up the three parts separately. DJ Clayworth 17:54, 25 May 2004 (UTC) reply
  • I just looked it up because the initials stood on the rear end of my laptop. So I guess it is useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.136.155.218 ( talk) 21:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Hilton Liverpool Hotel

Hilton Liverpool Hotel (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:11, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:11, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as no evidence of any notability, I was gonna suggest redirecting but since Liverpool isn't even mentioned on Hilton Worldwide I see no point. – Davey2010 • (talk) 22:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per above, I see no notability. Jab843 ( talk) 04:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Very ordinary, run of the mill three-star hotel. No special notability. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:03, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Artista Eli

Artista Eli (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD ( talk) 19:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, considering I added the 'notability' template. I can't find a single hint of reliable coverage about Artista Eli or Helen Shaw, in Spanish or English. Sionk ( talk) 21:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: I have not located any substantial coverage of the subject; any claim to notability appears to rest on the page reference into a publication on The Stuckists. Lacking its detail and noting it is a single page, it seems unlikely that it stands as sufficient to meet WP:ARTIST. AllyD ( talk) 20:22, 10 August 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Mandatory retirement. ( Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica 1000 01:35, 9 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Enforced retirement

Enforced retirement (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

  • Comment: Mandatory retirement is not the same as enforced retirement. Jonas Vinther ( talk) 17:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
According to whom? These suggest otherwise: 1, 2, 3. Tchaliburton ( talk) 17:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Animal welfare during World War II

Animal welfare during World War II (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article appears to be factual, but the way the information is synthesized is a case of original research which violates WP:NOT#ESSAY. I'm having difficulty finding any credible academic sources that have specifically studied animal welfare during this time frame. Lacking this the subject fails WP:GNG. Animal welfare is a notable subject, but we can't create articles about notable subjects with arbitrary time frames. If there are reliable sources covering this specific topic then I will retract this nomination. Tchaliburton ( talk) 17:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply

  • Comment: I can assure you, Tchaliburton, that the are reliable sources covering the specific topic; the article is simply incomplete. Jonas Vinther ( talk) 17:47, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Perhaps the article should be userfied until you have included those sources demonstrating notability. Then it could be moved into the article space when it's ready. Tchaliburton ( talk) 17:51, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Perhaps. But ... I think that when it's "out in the open" common editors will have a chance to see it and contribute to it - nobody's going to find it in my sandbox. Jonas Vinther ( talk) 18:02, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:04, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • I'm undecided about deletion, but I do want to note that we already have Animal welfare in Nazi Germany. I suppose the question here is whether reliable sources indicate that there is notable material about other countries that is specific to that time period. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:40, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
There does seem to be quite a lot of literature specific to Nazi Germany. Not so much with any of the other countries. That makes sense given the political and philosophical changes during the Nazi regime. It's also worth noting that Animal welfare in Nazi Germany covers a wider time frame than WWII because the Nazi era is not synonymous with the WWII era. Tchaliburton ( talk) 00:12, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Gentlemen, I can assure you that all the country's mentioned in the article, there is substantial reliable sources on, otherwise I would not have added them. The article is simply incomplete, as I stated before. Perhaps I was stupid to make a real article before it was finish or much longer. Jonas Vinther ( talk) 13:18, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply
No, not stupid at all! Please just make sure that you have secondary sources that indicate that, for each country included, there is actually a subject for that time period that should be treated as distinct and notable, relative to times before and after. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 00:07, 3 August 2014 (UTC) reply
I can assure you Tryptofish I have the secondary sources - once again - it's simply incomplete. I will resume work on the article shortly. Jonas Vinther ( talk) 16:15, 3 August 2014 (UTC) reply
I think you should retract your deletion, Tryptofish. Jonas Vinther ( talk) 17:17, 3 August 2014 (UTC) reply
I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you are referring to. Please explain. If I deleted something that I should not have, I'll certainly fix it, but I don't know what this is. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:47, 3 August 2014 (UTC) reply
I have plenty of reliable, independent, third-party sources to massive expand this article. There is defiantly enough sources to cover the topics mentioned and more. I will began the expansion sooner or later. I'm simply saying, as you suggested yourself in case there should be enough sources or coverage, that you should retract your deletion. You understand now, Tryptofish? Jonas Vinther ( talk) 00:15, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply
OK, I think you are saying that you want me to change my "undecided" comment to "keep". (In reality, I never endorsed deletion so far.) I'm comfortable leaving what I said as it is, pending further discussion here. I could be persuaded to "keep" sooner by seeing some key sources that would unambiguously establish the other countries as noteworthy and distinct topics during the time period (beyond just statements that such sources exist). I could also be persuaded to delete by arguments that such sources really do not exist, although at the moment I'm leaning towards erring on the side of giving the page more time. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Grrrrr! I'm such a moron, I confused you with Tchaliburton. I'm so sorry, Tryptofish. All the previous messages of mine were meant for Tchaliburton. Jonas Vinther ( talk) 22:11, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply
-- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:12, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Reply: Jonas Vinther, I'm still not seeing any references that focus on the WWII period. The closest are the references that discuss animal welfare in Nazi Germany. The section on Britain still strikes me as original research and there is nothing about any of the other belligerents (in fact, most of the belligerents aren't even listed). I'm not saying that this article can't be notable, I'm just saying it's not ready yet. I would support converting this to a draft in your user space until it's ready. Tchaliburton ( talk) 03:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- This is a mere essay, not an encyclopedic article. I did hear something that a lot of British people had their pets put donw at the oubreak of war, perhaps because they did not think they would be able to feed them, when food was rationed. Otherwise, I doubt animal welfare in UK or US was much different in 1940 from 1935 or 1948. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:50, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Fine - then delete it, and I'll re-create it when I made it a FA-class article in my userbox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonas Vinther ( talk • contribs) 17:31, August 5, 2014‎
If that's how this ends, it doesn't have to be deleted. You can just have it moved into your user space. But if you can provide, here, a list of the kinds of sources editors are asking for, we might decided to "keep". -- Tryptofish ( talk) 18:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply
I realize I could do that. But, without sounding too negative, sounds like a lot of work just to prove that I have enough reliable, third-party, independent sources. Then I'd rather complete it in my userbox. Jonas Vinther ( talk) 20:01, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Move to user space, per the request directly above. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:18, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Actually, I have already copy + paste everything into my sandbox, so might as well just delete it, and I'll re-crate it later. Jonas Vinther ( talk) 12:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Protestant Nationalist Party

Protestant Nationalist Party (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Non-notable, per nom. Fails WP:GNG & WP:ORG.-- JayJasper ( talk) 20:40, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Can't find any reason to keep. Stacie Croquet ( talk) 00:57, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - per nom. Snappy ( talk) 15:06, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. If the creator suggests deletion, and there is not substantial other contributions from others (and there seem not to be, from quick review of article's history), then delete. I hate "fake AFD's" where a creator-nominator suggests an article for deletion when they wish for it to be kept, but they want something else: affirmation, to pre-empt a real AFD, i dunno what other bad reason. Here, the creator-nominator seems serious they want it deleted. Just delete. -- do ncr am 05:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Amrit Row

Amrit Row (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD ( talk) 19:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Searches have turned up nothing beyond a bare-bones one-line listing in Apollo for his 2003 Watershed exhibition, which is far from enough for the WP:CREATIVE criteria. AllyD ( talk) 19:43, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:47, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • DElete -- I detect hints that he earns his living by other measn than his art. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:51, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Steve Milton

Steve Milton (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:37, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:37, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Bhaskar Roy

Bhaskar Roy (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prod removed by the creator. The texts of the article exhibit some sign of significance of the subject. So, it is here. Subject does not appear to have significant coverage in multiple secondary, independent and reliable sources, therefore it fails Wikipedia general notability guideline and Wikipedia notability guideline for biographies, and qualifies for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia deletion policy for not meeting notatbility standard. Nothing helpful found on Google news and Google books. Well, that's not a standard for inclusion, but just an indication. Please do not get confused the subject with Roy Bhaskar, which is very diff. person. Anupmehra - Let's talk! 14:02, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete • as per nomination. CutestPenguin { talk • contribs} 12:55, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete . per nomination. No links even in the article that support whatever its contents claim about Roy. -- SaHiL ( talk) 10:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

DWFL-FM

DWFL-FM (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment With a home page and Facebook account, it is NOT clearly a hoax article. Sure, the sources are dodgy (the homepage "about" link directs to this article, for instance), but if this station has a registered website, it's not a hoax.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 14:59, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Well, to be fair, its website is on Weebly rather than its own domain (something which most, though perhaps admittedly not all, radio stations with websites would have) — and it's not unheard of for people to create websites for things (even radio stations sometimes) that exist only in their own imaginations. Not that those things prove that it's a hoax, necessarily — but the existence of a website doesn't inherently prove that it's not, either. Bearcat ( talk) 20:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
As far as I'm concerned, this is an extremely badly-written and entirely unsourced article that's dancing right on the edge of being speediable as advertising/promotion in its current form. I can't satisfactorily answer the question of whether it's a hoax or not — it could just be a pirate radio station or a webstream (but those don't get automatic presumptions of notability under WP:NMEDIA), or it could indeed be a hoax page (it's not unheard of for people to create webpages for fantasy organizations that don't really exist, which is why we insist on reliable source coverage rather than taking the existence of a webpage as prima facie evidence of notability), or it could be just a badly written advert for a real radio station.
I don't have the depth of knowledge about Philippine media that would be necessary to really answer that — for instance, I wouldn't know where to even begin searching for any actual evidence of its existence or lack thereof, such as whether it has a broadcasting license or not. But that said, my suspicions are certainly raised by (a) the fact that its brand name is just the brand names of four other stations in the same market hinged together (real radio stations do not do this unless their management team failed Marketing 101); and (b) the fact that according to the Metro Manila radio market template, there's another station, DWBM-FM, first-adjacent to the frequency that this station claims to be on (and another one first-adjacent to the frequency that this one claims to have started out on, too). But that's virtually impossible, because nobody would be able to actually listen to either station's signal due to all the cross-channel leakage.
But the fact that I can't definitively prove that it's a hoax doesn't really matter, since it's a bad and unsourced article that can't be kept in this form regardless of whether it's real or a hoax. So no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can cite proper sourcing to prove that it really exists as a real, properly licensed radio station — but in this form it's an absolute delete. Bearcat ( talk) 17:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Bearcat said pretty much what I had to, but the fact that the 'station' depends on a Weebly to host their website and the MS-Paint/Paint.net quality station logos, the 13 Facebook 'likes' and the station's Twitter linking to an 'owner' who doesn't seem to be out of junior high make me think this 'station' has no broadcast tower and is another radiofan pipe dream who is solely webstreaming. Nate • ( chatter) 02:34, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. This is an obvious hoax. Also, I did a quick research about the author of this article. It seems that a 15 year old kid did this and all of the uploaded pictures here are also in his social media accounts. - WayKurat ( talk) 13:05, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Take off the air - Hoax. Nuff said. Also, I can recall once tuning in to near the claimed frequency (possibly while looking for radio stations to listen to), and around 104.9 it's just static. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 02:32, 3 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Just to add in my vote, the admin that will close this discussion might consider deleting all the images uploaded by this user as well. If those photos still remain here, he might just recreate the article and use them again. Here is the list of photos:
File:Mnyeenewlogo.gif ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Klyderaetrell ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log)
File:Mnyeeofficial.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Klyderaetrell ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log)
File:MHYEEmanila.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Klyderaetrell ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log)
File:MHYEEofficial.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Klyderaetrell ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log) - WayKurat ( talk) 02:50, 3 August 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Andrew Michaels

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

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

Well, that was quick. Apparently the article was deleted while I was typing the nomination! How nice! WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 12:11, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Altogen Biosystems

AfDs for this article:
Altogen Biosystems (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Despite the previous prod having been removed, there was zero support for keeping this at the last AFD. Despite there being zero support for keeping this, the AFD was closed as "no consensus". So we're back, and the subject is no closer to meeting either WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH than it was before. The available "sources" are a combination of press releases and primary material. Pinging duffbeerforme - the only other person who contributed to the last discussion (the nominator). St★lwart 111 10:09, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as it should have been the first time around. Fails WP:GNG. -- Kinu  t/ c 20:05, 7 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The sources are good, as shown above, and the 44 results in Scholar for Altogen itself, and probably other stuff as well, which I would search for if I was not filled with renewed disgust for the commonplace laziness of deletors. Nom and deletion arguments fail BEFORE. Anarchangel ( talk) 23:27, 8 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • A majority of those Scholar hits state nothing more than "we used their product" by naming the company as a parenthetical without providing any information. -- Kinu  t/ c 04:31, 9 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • And WP:BEFORE was covered twice - I contributed to the last deletion discussion and searched for sources then. In fact I explicitly said as much. You're free to file misguided, woefully uninformed and bad-faith personal attacks elsewhere. Oh wait, no you're not. St★lwart 111 06:22, 9 August 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Jordan Road, Hong Kong

Jordan Road, Hong Kong (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Having something named after you isn't the definition of notability used in Wikipedia. The source in the Chinese wiki only show that the road exists. One is simply a traffic ordinance listing Jordan Road among many others that mini-buses cannot drive on. While that is sufficient to verify the claim on the article it is not sufficient to establish notability. Rincewind42 ( talk) 16:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I can't speak to the other street nominations at this time, but Jordan Road is the subject of at least some significant coverage. See, e.g., Streets: Exploring Kowloon 24.151.10.165 ( talk) 18:55, 1 August 2014 (UTC) I added a brief history section to the article based on this ref. 24.151.10.165 ( talk) 19:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Major street in one of the centers of Hong Kong. If it's notable enough for there to be a station, Jordan Station, and a pier, Jordan Road Ferry Pier, it's notable enough for WP. Significant coverage easily found too [17] (also found by the anon). -- Oakshade ( talk) 01:32, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Your using "named after" to mean "a dedication made to an important place of person." In that sense, Jordan Road doesn't really have a station and a pier named after it. The station is located on Jordan Road and the Pier was too until reclamation work moved it. Jordon Road is simply the address of these places and nothing more. Rincewind42 ( talk) 03:04, 10 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. A major street in a major city, and, as noted by 24.151.10.165, substantive coverage exists. -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 05:10, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note that Wikipedia is not a directory and Wikipedia is not travelguide. Being a major street in a major city is not the criteria for inclusion under notability. The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability. Also bear in mind WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. It is not suffient to say srouces exit within this debate. You must point to the source as not all sources are reliable or sufficient. Rincewind42 ( talk) 16:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply
While multiple sources are "generally expected," WP:GNG does not and has never required more than one. It all depends, as GNG states, on the quality and depth of coverage. The source found above is very in-depth that goes on multiple book pages and actually gives more than the usual "multiple" coverages on other subjects combined. -- Oakshade ( talk) 16:06, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Two (very small) pages in fact while most of the first one is taken up by a map. And it's a travel guide to exploring Kowloon rather than an academic/historical source. Not enough weight there IMHO to carry it across the GNG threshold.  Philg88 ♦ talk 19:16, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply
I count six pages (not small), pages 60 through 65. It's basically an entire chapter devoted to Jourdan Road. -- Oakshade ( talk) 19:41, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Sure, the entire chapter is entitled "Jordan Road", but aside from the minimal coverage mentioned above, the remainder is vignettes about Yau ma Tei Typhoon Shelter, Yue Hwa Department Store, Kowloon Union Church and Manse and the Diocesan Girls School. Coverage of entities in Jordan Road doesn't make the road notable based on the above mentioned principle of notability not being inherited.  Philg88 ♦ talk 21:22, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply
All encapsulated on Jordan Road. Besides, we're only talking about English language sources in a Chinese language dominated region. If this coverage exists already in English, most certainly more exists in Chinese. -- Oakshade ( talk) 22:47, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Really? I can't find anything through a google book search.-- 180.172.239.231 ( talk) 23:53, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply
@ Oakshade: More sources do not exist in Chinese because that's something I always check WRT China/Hong Kong articles. There are passing mentions of bus routes and buildings in the street but nothing more substantive.  Philg88 ♦ talk 07:08, 3 August 2014 (UTC) reply
I frequently find sources in English that others miss, but not being a Chinese reader, I can't confirm that say any of these might be appropriate sources. While I trust you've made some effort to look, I just don't see this as the "proof" end-all on sources existing in Chinese or not.-- Oakshade ( talk) 19:58, 3 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Even if the street was named after this doctor (which it wasn't, that honour goes to John Newell Jordan), the NYT article says nothing about Jordan Road. As far as the Chinese coverage is concerned, the references cited above are a street guide and a pocket encyclopedia of Hong Kong culture, not academic texts. The same goes for the references in the Cantonese article - they are street guides to Hong Kong. These are sufficient for verifiabilty purposes but not not provide sufficient weight to satisfy the general notability guideline.  Philg88 ♦ talk 07:08, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply
The disparity in description is exactly why I was asking others ("comment") to evaluate these potential sources. I'm the one who added the reference to John Newell Jordan and the Hong Kong University reference supporting this addition. 24.151.10.165 ( talk) 15:34, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply
WP:GNG does not require only "academic texts" as evidence of notability and travel guides are not excluded either. As long as the combined coverage is significant, it can come from travel guides, academic texts or anything else that's secondary to the topic and subject to editorial oversight.-- Oakshade ( talk) 17:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to List of streets and roads in Hong Kong. Not notable enough.-- 180.172.239.231 ( talk) 13:30, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep or, if the historical references I've added to the article and noted above are not deemed significant coverage, merge to Jordan, Hong Kong. The neighborhood article will provide more context and will benefit from the historical material. See WP:MERGE "Context: If a short article requires the background material or context from a broader article in order for readers to understand it." and WP:GEOLAND "Examples may include subdivisions, business parks, housing developments, informal regions of a state, unofficial neighborhoods, etc. – any of which could be considered notable on a case-by-case basis, given non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources." 24.151.10.165 ( talk) 15:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Sorry, but WP:GEOLAND doesn't apply to roads. The idea behind the suggested redirect outcome is that all the verifiable and sourced information on Jordan Road (of which there isn't much) can go in the appropriate entry in List of streets and roads in Hong Kong with a "See also" mention in Jordan, Hong Kong. Any ancillary or "tourism" type info belongs in Wikitravel or Wikivoyage, not here.  Philg88 ♦ talk 05:40, 6 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Just to be clear, the policy cites above are to support merging to the neighborhood article. 24.151.10.165 ( talk) 14:54, 6 August 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Michael David Ewart,

Michael David Ewart, (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:10, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:10, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, no refs, unclear claim to notability. Hairhorn ( talk) 13:53, 3 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, Autobiographical nonsense. MiracleMat ( talk) 09:39, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Utkal Gaurab

Utkal Gaurab (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent| lambast 04:35, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
@ ArcAngel: I just wanted to highlight it and even the claimed award is not cited. CutestPenguin { talk • contribs} 16:40, 3 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete This article is an obvious hoax and multiple speedy criteria applies. @ ArcAngel and Cutest Penguin: have you both noticed something?? The award image is an obvious hoax. There is no Dada Saheb Palekar award actually exist. But Dada Saheb Phalke exists. See the image carefully it is written "Dada Saheb Phalke". And now see the article it is written "Dada Saheb Palekar". Read this and you will find that the award is only given to those who work in Bollywood cinema. There is also a list of people who received this award. I can't see the subjects name in that list. It is claimed that he got the award in 2014 which is not possible since Gulzar has got it. (see my next comment) There are many similar issues with this article. I guess, the award certificate is madeup of a computer software maybe by Adobe photoshop or similar. No reliable third party source found in World Wide Web to verify the claims which are obviously hoax. I'm going to add those speedy tags again. It seems to me that the creator has COI issues as well. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 14:17, 9 August 2014 (UTC)] reply
@ Jim Carter - Public: Even I have same views on this and Yes! I did noticed and even I mentioned above about award. CutestPenguin ( Talk) 14:23, 9 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Ah.. another look told me that the award is not even given out this year i.e. the award is not given out in 2014. Then how did the subject got it?? The last recipent was Gulzar in 2013. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 14:29, 9 August 2014 (UTC) reply
@ Jim Carter - Public: Do you want the same award? Well, I am very good at Photoshop . CutestPenguin ( Talk) 14:35, 9 August 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No prejudice against recreation as a redirect to Vatican Cricket Team. Jenks24 ( talk) 14:16, 9 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Aamir Bhatti

Aamir Bhatti (  | 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 run-of-the-mill priest whose sole distinction appears to be that he plays on the Vatican cricket team, a symbolic organization that has no more standing in professional cricket leagues than does any company cricket team. bd2412 T 03:02, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete This article also has major coat-racking issues. If people want an article on the Vatican Cricket Team, create that article. In addition, he seems not to even be a priest yet, not that it really has much bearing on his notability. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:47, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- Non-notable cricket player for a start-up semi-pro amateur team, which team itself is arguably non-notable per WP:ORG. Of the sources listed in the footnotes, all but two appear to be Vatican-related thus disqualifying them as independent (the mentions of the subject were WP:ROUTINE to trivial in any event). Of the three remaining independent sources (BBC, The Hindu and Dawn), only one has substantial coverage of the subject, therefore subject fails GNG for lack of in-depth coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 16:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Do not delete - WikiProject Biography has rated this article as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. Tissueboy ( talk) 03:04, 3 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Huh? And what does a WikiProject's evaluation of an article have to do with the notability of the subject? Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 03:13, 3 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Only the Dawn article comes remotely close to covering the subject in detail in a reliable source. Neither alone, nor in combination with the mentions in other sources, is that sufficient for GNG purposes. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 11:43, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- I dount that the cricket team is even semi-pro: it looks amateur to me. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:07, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - completely fails WP:CRIN and WP:ATH requirements. His notability as a priest is also virtually non-existent. Just to correct a comment above, this team isn't even remotely semi-professional! Most national cricket teams outside of the ten full members of the ICC, with exception to a few of its associate members, are for the most part amateur teams. Oh and Tissueboy's reason to keep is the most bizarre argument I've heard in four years on here! Howzat?Out!Out!Out! ( talk) 16:45, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I've now created Vatican Cricket Team and would once again highlight that redirects are cheap. I don't think there's enough for the subject to individually pass WP:GNG but he was asked to meet with the Governor as an international representative of the team; I think his name is a plausible search term and we now have a redirect target. St★lwart 111 23:03, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - the Vatican's cricket team most certainly fails WP:CRIN requirements for teams - it's not played representative cricket and isn't even recognised by the International Cricket Council! Howzat?Out!Out!Out! ( talk) 16:27, 6 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Absolutely. Luckily, though, it passes WP:GNG in spades with significant coverage in major international papers from at least 4 different countries. So the fact that it fails WP:CRIN after that is moot. St★lwart 111 18:08, 6 August 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Imvbox

Imvbox (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:GNG Kansiime ( talk) 05:06, 24 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: the sourcing in the article appears to meet WP:GNG. What needs be determined is whether this online distribution platform meets WP:WEB or not. Schmidt, Michael Q. 01:37, 25 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I am the article's creator. The first, third and fourth sources cited in the article discuss the topic (IMVBox) extensively. They detail IMVBox's aims as a company and mention the company's collection of films. Mairey3005 ( talk) 08:43, 25 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I am the article's creator. On the matter of WP:WEB: I have been monitoring IMVBox for some time now and to my mind IMVBox has gained a great deal of recognition over recent months. It seems that many newspapers and news agencies in Iran have picked up on IMVBox’s work and started to cover the company; ISNA, a major news agency in Iran, ran a piece on IMVBox's work and interviewed the director. What comes through in many of the articles is the understanding that IMVBox is fighting a longstanding problem in Iran: online piracy. There is a view, I think, that IMVBox is revolutionising Iranian cinema. It is after all the first time Iranian films have been gathered together on one website. Before IMVBox’s creation Iranian films were available on many websites for illegal download. Iranian filmmakers are beginning to recognise what IMVBox stands for and how it will help them in their work. The press release from 200 Iranian actors and filmmakers received a lot of attention in Iran, and IMVBox was at the centre of the campaign. Mairey3005 ( talk) 10:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I am a subscriber to the IMVBox website and have been for some time. I came across this Wikipedia page when accessing the website online and saw it was up for deletion. I would like to add that IMVBox is a extremely unique service, projecting Iranian cinema onto an accessible, digital platform and therefore indeed revolutionising the genre. It has enabled me to access both important and influential Iranian films that I would otherwise never have had the opportunity of watching. I believe it deserves recognition for continuously supporting a genre, that perhaps somewhat can become overlooked in Western society. The service provided by IMVBox also prevents and fights online piracy, therefore supporting a positive movement for cinema viewed via the Internet. I believe IMVBox deserves recognition and firmly believe it is in coherence with the WP:WEB guidelines. Ljayne92 ( talk) 11:48, 26 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Davey2010 • (talk) 02:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep It has some online sources and it seems like it is a good source for Iranian movies. Frmorrison ( talk) 21:19, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I am the article's creator. I have just added an article published on BBC Persian that describes the work of IMVBox. BBC Persian surely must qualify as a credible source. Mairey3005 ( talk) 15:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Hilton Garden Inn Frankfurt Airport

Hilton Garden Inn Frankfurt Airport (  | 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 subject does not appear to meet criteria for inclusion ( WP:NOTABLE), and in fact appears to be an advert from a connected editor. Benboy00 ( talk) 19:50, 14 July 2014 (UTC) reply

  • Comment I especially like the ™ and ® symbols, which aren't even present in the source, ruling out a simple copy/paste oversight. Benboy00 ( talk) 19:54, 14 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:46, 14 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:46, 14 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:46, 14 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar  ♔ 15:30, 24 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Davey2010 • (talk) 02:04, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • delete Just a hotel of no especial significance. Mangoe ( talk) 12:37, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. ( WP:NPASR). ( Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica 1000 04:18, 8 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Alashash

Alashash (  | 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 found no coverage for this. Fails WP:NF. SL93 ( talk) 00:36, 17 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SL93 ( talk) 00:51, 17 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. SL93 ( talk) 00:51, 17 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Original Arabic:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Proper title:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Writer:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Director:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Producer:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Actor:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Actress:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Production:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Comment: In correcting article title for this Arabic film that never had an English-language release, it does appear that it may have had some Arabic language coverage under "الههانننه". Per WP:CSB non-English sources are fine in the lack of English language equivalents. I will await input from Wikipedians better able to find and translate. Schmidt, Michael Q. 09:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The film's Arabic name is "القشاش". The word "الههانننه" has no meaning in Arabic. (Yes, I am a native speaker.) I have corrected the name here and in the article. -- Meno25 ( talk) 10:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar  ♔ 15:30, 24 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Davey2010 • (talk) 02:02, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

DivXLand Media Subtitler

DivXLand Media Subtitler (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: no significant coverage in independent secondary reliable sources. All I found were these two sources, which don't discuss the software in more or less significant depth, and both have problems of their own: Softpedia is not independent (hosts indiscriminate collection of download and describe it randomly; no assertion of notability to reuse per WP:GNG) and LifeHacker is a collective blog, albeit with some editorial control. Anyway, even if sources were 100% reliable and independent, the "significant coverage" criterion of WP:GNG is not addressed. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff ( talk• track) 15:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Davey2010 • (talk) 01:59, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete - The article reads like an advertisement. As is, it seems to provide no value to a Wikipedia user. The software has some coverage, but questionable whether it is sufficient to confer notability. Substantial coverage would likely include critical analysis rather than fluffy marketing.-- Rpclod ( talk) 18:41, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Does not show significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. The article has received two "reviews" but they don't qualify as significant. Fleet Command ( talk) 07:41, 7 August 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Lost in the riots

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:03, 25 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:03, 25 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I can't find any substantial coverage from independent reliable sources, just primary sources, blogs, trivial gig mentions, etc. 4-year-old working band, so may achieve notability in future. -- Hobbes Goodyear ( talk) 12:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Davey2010 • (talk) 01:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - local band; no evidence of touring or large concerts. Bearian ( talk) 20:14, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Ludic fallacy

Ludic fallacy (  | 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 term has no independent notability outside of Nicholas Nassim Taleb's work. External references containing this term all refer directly to Taleb and focus on his work in general. I propose merging this article into The Black Swan (2007 book). Previous discussion on the talk page. 0x0077BE [ talk/ contrib] 22:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC) 0x0077BE [ talk/ contrib] 22:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC) reply

It is not true that it has no independent notability. I hear it used frequently in risk management; I did a search on Google Scholar and it has plenty of citations as a fallacy. Limit-theorem ( talk)
Care to share? I've looked around pretty extensively and have never found it referenced independent of Taleb's other ideas, indicating that it has no independent notability. 0x0077BE [ talk/ contrib] 20:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Comment. You are not actually proposing deletion, unless you feel there should not even be a redirect at ludic fallacy. Please withdraw the proposal, and propose (or just WP:BOLDly do) the merge. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Hm. If that's procedure I suppose. Admin or non-admin can feel free to close this unless someone else feels that there shouldn't be a redirect. I'll just merge the article myself with redirection to Taleb's page at some point. 0x0077BE [ talk/ contrib] 20:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:38, 25 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:38, 25 July 2014 (UTC) reply

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

Probably should be unsigned, but obviously that doesn't really support notability. It was a mistake to have included it in that list anyway, since it's not really a cognitive bias. 0x0077BE [ talk/ contrib] 20:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Davey2010 • (talk) 01:56, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I am unhappy with the idea that for a concept to be notable it should be used in ways that do not mention its creator. In this case the suggestion seems not to apply anyway [19] and this search suggests more examples though I am blocked from accessing most of them. I am also disappointed about the discussion here which seems to be deprecating having an article because the term "ludic fallacy" may only be used in the popular press. If this were true (and it is not [20]) it might be a reason to make extra efforts to have a responsible article so that intelligent, interested readers can look up a description of the concept and so be better able to assess whatever journalese they are reading and whether the concept itself has any validity. If the present article is "extremely wanting" [21] I would recommend improving it. Whether it should be merged with The Black Swan (2007 book) is of lesser importance. I think, editorially, it would unbalance that article but that is a matter not for AFD but for talk page discussion. Thincat ( talk) 10:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • keep The article needs a lot of help but there's no question about notability: there are plenty of GBook and GScholar references. Merging it back into the book is a mistake; it's indeed possible that any merger should run the other way. Mangoe ( talk) 13:47, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • keep I hear it used frequently in risk management; I did a search on Google Scholar and it has plenty of citations as a fallacy. Limit-theorem ( talk) 00:39, 8 August 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Of course professors are not automatically notable, in that case we could do away with WP:PROF... Notability could not be established. Randykitty ( talk) 15:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Olawoye Theo Ladapo

Olawoye Theo Ladapo (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

After reading the article and using the references provided as a guide, I am not convinced that it meets WP:ACADEMIC. Darreg ( talk) 01:40, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Darreg ( talk) 01:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Darreg ( talk) 01:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Darreg ( talk) 01:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • I do not know this Professor, but I have worked in a Nigerian university, although a long time ago, and I do understand the system somewhat. I think we need to be cautious on this one. The article needs work as do related articles. For example I just added the university where he is a Professor and then discovered that it it is not listed in the disambiguation page Federal University of Technology, so I did that too. Within Nigeria he might well be one of the top professors. He probably spends more time on important national committees that does an average US professor and he will certainly not have the massive research group that leads to a massive number of publications, but he could be notable. The article needs more work, before we can really tell. If he was a US or European professor that work would be done quickly. With a Nigerian it will take time. I am a weak keep for now. -- Bduke (Discussion) 21:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Strong keep : Article passed the professor test. Professors are generally notable based on existing WP:Consensus Wikicology ( talk) 12:41, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Why would you say such a thing? You know from recent AfD experience that professors are not generally notable. They are notable if they pass one or more criteria in WP:PROF. -- 101.117.110.137 ( talk) 10:06, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply
I searched for Professors in WP:Consensus. but I found nothing. Can you kindly provide a link that states that an academic professor is automatically notable? If you can do that I will gladly change my vote to KEEP as soon as I can find a reliable source in the article that shows that he is indeed a professor. Darreg ( talk) 12:52, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply

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

Comment: :@ Darreg: why not direct this question to RHaworth ( talk · contribs) when he quoted that “ Professors are deemed automatically notable ”? @ Afd/Charles Ayo! Nevertheless criteria 5 of WP:ACADEMIC answered your question. Which clearly stipulated that a subject meet WP:ACADEMIC if “ The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon). Am not soo convinced that you read WP:ACADEMIC before your comment above because if you did, you would have came accross criteria 5 that answered your question. Please kindly go through WP:ACADEMIC for verification and clearification.

@ Jamie Tubers: I expected an experienced editor like you to state how the professor failed WP:ACADEMIC. Rather than just saying “ he failed WP:ACADEMIC ” like you did here. When did he published his first journal? How many citations has he gathered? And state its h-index. To validate your statement above. Wikicology ( talk) 23:01, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply

  • The citations given doesn't prove anything. before we even talk about the reliability of the sources, the sources are links to publications of the subject. That alone is "self published" flag. Even if those sources can be used (in which they can't be), they didn't focus on the Subject....they can't establish the notability of the subject. Google didn't bring out anything significant, just the scientific file sharing sites that you used as references. The plain fact is, the subject of this article isn't notable. Don't burden yourself trying to keep it, cos it'd still get deleted anyway. This article fails WP:GNG, the most basic criteria. So, no point in even moving to check for WP:Academic.-- Jamie Tubers ( talk) 23:24, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Fails WP:PROF, with an h-index of just 3. I have removed the claim that the subject was a Fellow of the British Institute of Biomedical Sciences, which was not confirmed by the ibms.org website. His role as Department Head is not enough for WP:PROF#C6, nor is his role on local journals enough for WP:PROF#C8. Given the subject's long career, it remains possible that local Nigerian news coverage brings subject over the line for WP:GNG or WP:PROF#C7, although I can't find such coverage with Google. For searching purposes, be aware that "Olawoye" is the surname (an apparent error by the article creator). -- 101.117.110.137 ( talk) 10:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: per above delete votes. Darreg ( talk) 11:32, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Jane Pullman Standish

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:03, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The coverage of her wedding is one lines in articles on larger topics and tweets. Nothing here rises to the level of notability. This seems largely designed to make T.R. Threston seem more important. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Probably qualifies under WP:CSD#G5 as having been created by a member of this sock farm. The sources listed are likely all hoaxes: quickly created websites publishes solely for the purpose of adding credibility to this and the other articles created by the sock farm. The "Harris Charitable Trust" doesn't appear to exist on anyone's radar, but it has honored all of the subjects of this sock farm. Similarly, the Social Network of New York seems to exist only through its own postings in various online forums. No serious coverage exist of the network. Similarly for The Pullman Trust: no sources can be found other than social network postings to verify the existence of this organization. Pullman is surely a socialite, and managed to get her name mentioned in an article about flash weddings, but that seems to be the only legitimate coverage available. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 12:20, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Other then being mentioned once by an ABCNews report who was quoting a tweet, all these sources are to social media or user-submitted content. I see no evidence that she, her father, or the Pullman trust actually exist. Choess ( talk) 12:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above & Mainly WikiDan61 - All created by a sock who prefers promoting non notable people. – Davey2010 • (talk) 13:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: I fail to see the relevance with respect to an encyclopedia here, intel on who went to her wedding reads like taken from yellow-press and does not belong, I also highly suspect it being a product of that sockpuppet-zoo around "AustralianThreston", since the article was initiated by one of it's suspected underlings. LagondaDK ( talk) 13:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WikiDan61. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 17:15, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete all: After the recent update of LagondaDK on his Talk page I suggest ALL of the "articles" listed on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AustralianThreston as part of the sockpuppet network should be speedy-deleted. I think, this is proof enough, that there is not a single one, which is NOT a hoax or at least provide fake information.-- Susumu ( talk) 22:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Sofia Rodrigues Braganza

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete None of the sources rise to the level of notability. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:26, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - WP:DIDEROT Jim-Siduri ( talk) 04:55, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete All of the sources are deeply suspicious. Like other material in the sockpuppet investigation, the New York Travel Writers Society Annual Report was uploaded to Google Books by self-publishing through CreateSpace. The tributes and its listing as a private stock on Bloomberg are all generated from unchecked data submitted online. In short, the article's subject and her company are social media hoaxes. Choess ( talk) 12:17, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete under WP:CSD#G5 for having been created by a member of this sock farm. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 12:35, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above & Mainly WikiDan61 - All created by a sock who prefers promoting non notable people. – Davey2010 • (talk) 13:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: I fail to see the relevance here ... I am also very alarmed as to the given references, their nature, how they got online, questionable ISBN, sockfarm-involvement. LagondaDK ( talk) 14:05, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Sockfarm qualifies for G5. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 14:29, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete all: After the recent update of LagondaDK on his Talk page I suggest ALL of the "articles" listed on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AustralianThreston as part of the sockpuppet network should be speedy-deleted. I think, this is proof enough, that there is not a single one, which is NOT a hoax or at least provide fake information.-- Susumu ( talk) 22:10, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: another product of Australian Threston's sock-farm, intel on Braganza originate from online-profiles like facebook and WordPress and the likes, her company "Braganza Publishing" - said to have been in business for 30 years - is nowhere to be found, only hints in public space, mentioning in "T.R. Threston" related articles that themselves were published in public space. The one web-site that was presented as the company's site ain't convincing at all, does not appear to be professional, established in public space on free to use server and with no list of publication or names of authors whatsoever. A really poor presentation for what is said to be a 100 employees company. Nowadays thats considerably large for a publishing company. After 30 years of publishing one should at least expect some of their books having ended up with either a bookseller or a library. Apart from that: Braganza Publishing would not qualify for an article under the Wikipedia rules, and Sofia Braganza won't either. Most open space sites you find will be self-referential, being linked to T.R. Threston -> John P. Fitzpatrick -> Sofia Braganza -> Braganza Publishing -> World Guide Publishing (T.R. Threston) and back! LagondaDK ( talk) 14:03, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

John P. Fitzpatrick

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:00, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:00, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:00, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Minor photographer who was published, that does not make someone notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nomination. EricSerge ( talk) 03:28, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Fails WP:BASIC. The disturbing "obituary" reference mentions "Fitzpatrick had become extremely vocal towards his hatred towards his former friend and co-worker, award winning travel writer T.R. Threston,..." leading me to conclude that the article was not created with the intent of improving the encyclopedia.- Mr X 12:15, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete under WP:CSD#G5 for having been created by a member of this sock farm, noted for elaborate hoaxes involving hastily created external websites, and user-generated content of other sites.
  • Delete per above & Mainly WikiDan61 - All created by a sock who prefers on promoting non notable people. – Davey2010 • (talk) 13:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: And once more: sockfarm-involvement (references, aso) cause suspicion. Apart from that: how is this relevant for an encyclopedia? LagondaDK ( talk) 14:08, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete can't find reliable third party sources. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 14:23, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete all: After the recent update of LagondaDK on his Talk page I suggest ALL of the "articles" listed on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AustralianThreston as part of the sockpuppet network should be speedy-deleted. I think, this is proof enough, that there is not a single one, which is NOT a hoax or at least provide fake information.-- Susumu ( talk) 22:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: not relevant for the encyclopedia. Apart from that: the background-check uncovered a dodgy story of him being threatening to rape and kill both "T.R. Threston" and "Sofia Braganza", both who had Wiki-articles, created by AustralianThreston's (blocked) sock-farm (1st deleted, 2nd AfD running) Fitzpatric hunted by CIA and FBI died in Croatia ... it reads like a dime-novel of the worst kind. Info online are either from facebook or twitter-accounts or released on free-to-use web-sites that ain't proper source. At some point Fitzpatrick claims to have worked for the "National Geographic Magazine", but there is no mentioning of him there. Footnote 6 hints to him working for a motorsport magazine, but if you check for his name there you will only find a photo of one "John Fitzpatrick" having a race in an old Ford against a Mini Cooper, no photo "by" him. Photoshopped profile-photoes like here that is a badly photoshopped version of this don't help. There is one photographer named "John Fitzpatrick" (no "P." there), but hes a wedding-photographer. As for the collaboration mentioned in Footnote 4 ("Where The REALLY Big Waves Live"), the only sources its being mentioned are sites somehow related to Fitzpatrick (and not the author!). As for the award winning: one should expect to find something on that, but you don't!
The only list of prizes or nominations are to be found are on his own AuthorsDen profile, claiming to have been nominated for Pulitzer in 2001, but apart from that: no neutral sources! An article resp. press-release claiming him to have been awarded numerous prizes has actually been published under the author's name "John P. Fitzpatrick" on one of them free-to-publish sites, where anyone is allowed to publish anything. The only award winning "John P. Fitzpatrick" I found was actually another "John P. Fitzpatrick" who too originates from New Jersey and won prices for his short-films. But he is far younger and in cinematography and not photoes ...
To sum it all up: the story is strange, product of AustralianThreston's sock-farm, connected to other articles that had been deleted (irrelevance, + sock-farm), given references do not proof the claims, alternative sources originate from "John P. Fitzpatrick" accounts, there is the danger that biographical data of other "John (P.) Fitzpatrick"s are mashed up in this, taking all that into account: data not convincing, person not relevant for encyclopedia. Consequence: deletion. LagondaDK ( talk) 10:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Transfer of Burden

Transfer of Burden (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:41, 24 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker talk 00:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or merge into " Transaction cost". The article largely references transaction cost. The subject does appear to be a commonly used term (unlike transaction cost).-- Rpclod ( talk) 18:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. This is an extended dictionary definition but Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Also this seems to be a neologism that hasn't been accepted by the construction economics community. Fiachra10003 ( talk) 18:26, 9 August 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Top o' the morning toastmasters

Top o' the morning toastmasters (  | 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 club of a notable organisation. There are 1000's of similar clubs, not everyone deserves an article. Reads like WP:Promotion Gbawden ( talk) 07:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:38, 24 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:38, 24 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker talk 00:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Just another toastmasters club.-- Rpclod ( talk) 18:53, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:MILL (this is a run of the mill club), WP:CORP (this is not an especially notable non-profit corporation), and WP:NOTINHERITED (many small organizations inevitably have had one or two famous members). Bearian ( talk) 20:11, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Vivek Kumar Pandey

AfDs for this article:
Vivek Kumar Pandey (  | 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 third (at least) in a series of articles created about an academic of no clear notability.

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Hoary ( talk) 00:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Hoary ( talk) 00:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hoary ( talk) 00:35, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and Salt. Scholarly achievements totally inadequate for WP:Prof [22]. Xxanthippe ( talk) 00:50, 1 August 2014 (UTC). reply
  • Delete and salt. Notability still not evident. — David Eppstein ( talk) 02:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. This should be the 3rd nomination. Xxanthippe ( talk) 02:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC). reply
    • Response. Perhaps wrongheadedly, I supposed that the title would convey "2nd nomination of an article titled 'Vivek Kumar Pandey'". Titling it "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vivek Kumar Pandey (3rd nomination)" would I think have brought other complications. ¶ Incidentally, additionally salting "Dr. Vivek Kumar Pandey" (with and without the dot) could be a good idea. -- Hoary ( talk) 10:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
I am sure you are right. Xxanthippe ( talk) 11:19, 1 August 2014 (UTC). reply
If this ends with "delete", perhaps also delete User:Vivek Kumar Pandey, which is the draft for an article. -- Hoary ( talk) 12:42, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

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

  • Keep. As a Cadet and Scientist he is position holder: He visited ICTP, Italy in August, 2004 as visiting scientist to join the course on climate dynamics and he is also position holder in 96 Uttar Pradesh Battalion (UP BN), Jaunpur and thus the Varanasi group of Indian NCC (Army Wing) in 2007. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.156.187 ( talk) 13:49, 3 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Strike possibly WP:SOC and WP:COI. CutestPenguin { talk • contribs} 16:45, 3 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Reverting strikeout. The suspicion that a commenter here might be a sockpuppet (of whom?) or have a conflict of interest is not a good reason to strike out the comment. (Indeed, certainty that a commenter has a conflict of interest wouldn't be good reason, and certain sockpuppetry might not be either.) -- Hoary ( talk) 22:40, 3 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Struck out second "keep". You only get to say "keep" (or "delete") once. -- Hoary ( talk) 22:44, 3 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per nomination. CutestPenguin { talk • contribs} 16:47, 3 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. It seems that the person using Nokia is forced to insert line breaks; it's these that screw up the AfD template, as well as much else besides. Attempting to use my own (non-Nokia) dumbphone for editing an article would have the same disastrous result. (I'd never consider using it for such a purpose.) -- Hoary ( talk) 00:50, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Article of notable person have multidimensional approach for benefit of humanity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.151.0 ( talk) 06:00, 4 August 2014 (UTC) — 117.199.151.0 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
  • Keep. If above five facts given in Hindi is of Dr. Vivek Kumar Pandey and also the text in the article too make him National and International importance. Thus article of such notable person needed to preserve and keep on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.146.109 ( talk) 06:43, 4 August 2014 (UTC) — 117.199.146.109 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
@ Hoary: Now above these two votes signifies a lot. Well, in my comment I mentioned 'possibly' which mean I am not sure. CutestPenguin { talk • contribs} 08:37, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Well, Cutest Penguin, if you're not sure that one "!vote" (as they're called hereabouts) is by a sockpuppet of somebody who has already made a !vote, then don't strike it through. And even if you are sure, don't strike it through. This AfD will be closed by somebody who will be competent to judge the relative probabilities for him/herself. For this reason, I have again removed your strike-through. Please don't strike through again, unless you are very sure of what you are doing. Although if you were definitely in the right, then the rightness would be evident to another editor who could dispassionately make the same strike through, so again there'd no rush for you to do it. (When would you be in the right? If you had strong reason to believe that a comment was posted by the sockpuppet of a blocked or banned user, or if a comment were grossly offensive -- and I haven't seen any allegation of either.) -- Hoary ( talk) 09:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I gone through his blog "Vivekanand and Modern Tradition", I found it very creative idea such as humanity originated from Prayag( Allahabad) from Saptarshi and Allahabad is the place where three major religions ( Hindu, Islam and Christianity are present with their potential; and Islam work parallel to Shri Ramaism and Christianity works parallel to Shri Krishnaism is his most important at least for Indian point of view as well as for world's point of view and his this outcome of the thoughts which he discussed in his blog very clearly makes him notable. Also as an academician and scientist he has good presentation. I therefore want his article on it in the same form because obviously he is notable. let us have a visit on his blog "Vivekanand and Modern Tradition" [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.214.132.235 ( talk) 11:39, 4 August 2014 (UTC) \ — 117.214.132.235 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
  1. ^ "Vivekanand and Modern Tradition". Pandey's famous blog
  • Comment. As urged by 117.214.132.235 ( contributions) elsewhere on this page, I visited "Pandey's famous blog". It's a mixture of English and Hindi. Unfortunately I cannot read the latter, but the former contains much Deep Thought, most (all?) of which is too Deep for me as well as inexplicably duplicated. This is a shortish example: in common with every entry I have glanced at, this hasn't attracted a single response -- which, for a "famous blog", is surprising. (Compare the degree of audience participation at, say, " Bike Snob NYC", whose more or less anonymous author is written up as a blogger in the NYT.) However, my mere impressions are of little importance, if any. If Pandey's blog is indeed of unusual significance, then where are the independent, published sources that say this? -- Hoary ( talk) 22:33, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The Islam who work parallel to Shri Ramaism is elder brother of Christianity who works parallel to Shri Krishnaism as Shri Ram is Elder than Shri Krishna in all means. This statement given by Dr. Pandey in his blog is very important for the world society. As a pesonal I see him on his facebook and found this blog view in one week at a particular date as a famous blog evidence is as follows(described by Dr. Pandey on 23 July on his faceebook account): My blog "Vivekanand and Modern Tradition" has more than 24500 page views from all over the world since August, 2013 to till date. Entry Pageviews in one week: United States/172, India/117, Germany/25, Australia/49, United Arab Emirates/ 2, Bahrain/1, France/1, Malaysia/1, Netherlands/1, Russia/1, Nepal/4, Bulgaria/1, Japan/1| I found him notable as a scientist, academician, social worker and philosopher and as a creative member of this world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.159.126 ( talk) 05:10, 5 August 2014 (UTC) — 117.199.159.126 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
    • "Japan/1" was probably me. ¶ The question is not "Does some anonymous person here find him notable as a scientist, academician, social worker and philosopher and as a creative member of this world?" Instead, it's "What do independent, published, reliable sources say about him?" -- Hoary ( talk) 09:26, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. We have some scientific works of Dr. Pandey which is important for mathematical modeling and reanalysis of Indonesian throughflow and Indian Ocean Dynamics as well as for the Climatic importance of the society from a newly born centre in year 2001 having less computational facility in comparison with the other International Centre and also important that his work is his standalone work rather than a big group. Dr. Pandey’s 5 recent papers on climate dynamics quoted on NCAR/UCAR Climate Data Guide and RAMA publications as publication from University of Allahabad [1] [2], his works on Indonesian throughflow and Indian Ocean Dynamics are quoted in Princeton Ocean Model publication in form of 4 publication [3]and also one of the co-authored work “Mathematical Modelling of Atmosphere and Ocean Processes around Antarctica” as a Review paper edited by NCAOR, Goa, HeadLland Sada, Vasco-da-Gama, 2007 is also quoted as search by Pandey [4]. I hope for a academician of 100% presence in the institution and having scientific attitude at place like University of Allahabad it is a good performance. We need having him on Wikipedia as a notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.244.247 ( talk) 10:45, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Is this why you removed the AfD template? But whatever the reason for that, it wasn't as interesting an edit as this one, in which you added to User:Vivek Kumar Pandey a potted description of V K Pandey's editing of English-language Wikipedia -- a description that seems to describe your editing. If you are V K Pandey, simply write in the first person; if you're not, perhaps you can explain your editing of V K Pandey's user page and the curious resemblance between you and him. -- Hoary ( talk) 12:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. As we have following discussion from his web page: Pandey honored as the Proud of University of Allahabad as Proud of Allahabad University Alumni Assocaition since 2008 [5] "Pandey is the Proud Past of AU Alumni". Pandey is the proud of Allahabad University</ref>. Encyclopedia article in English have Dr Pandey's Unique Identifier-4780316397 of OCLC WorldCat: Pandey's Biography added in the OCLC WorldCat and MARQUIS WHO'S WHO DISTINGUISHED RESEARCH SCIENTIST in 2009 [6] [7] [8] and he is also I honored as TOP 100 Scientist 2010 by International Biographical Centre (IBC), Cambridge. [9]. Keep the article 14.139.244.243 ( talk) 11:49, 5 August 2014 (UTC) — 14.139.244.243 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
  1. ^ “Dr. Pandey’s 5 recent papers on Climate Dynamics”. All the 5 papers based on reanalysis/evaluation of NCEP Global Ocean Data Assimilation System (GODAS) using Research Moored Array for African-Asian-Australian Monsoon Analysis and Prediction (RAMA) are quoted in NCAR/UCAR Climate Data Guide as comments
  2. ^ “Dr. Pandey’s 5 recent papers on Climate Dynamics”. Quoted as RAMA publications in 2010-11-13/14
  3. ^ “Pandey’s paper on Indonesian Throughflow using Princeton Ocean Model(POM) in the POM model publication list”. POM Model publication list search result of Pandey, Vivek Kumar
  4. ^ “Antarctica related mathematical modeling work”. Quoted on POM publication list
  5. ^ "Dr. Pandey is the Proud Past Alumni of Allahabad University Alumni Association". Dr. Pandey is Allahabad University Alumni Association's proud i.e. proud of University of Allahabad
  6. ^ http://www.worldcat.org/title/vivek-kumar-pandey "Dr. Pandey's Biograpy is included in encyclopedic biography"]. Dr. Pandey's biography added in OCLC WorlCat biography as the list say
  7. ^ [1]
  8. ^ "Vivek's biography in Marquis Whos Who online data". Pandey's brief biography in Marquis online data sets
  9. ^ [2]
  • Comments. I have following details about alumni award of Dr. Pandey: At present Allahabad University Alumni Association web site is [1], Past or oldest or as it is at least latest 2008 Allahabad University Alumni web site of declaration of Proud Past Alumni(Famous alumni include is [2] [3], and middle age web site of declaration of Proud Past Alumni(Famous alumni include is [4] [5], and further associated dummy web page in the supports are here: [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]. I have expectation from the members in the debates that they should not have any confusion on his honour as time to time since 2008 to 2012 this leeast was on the declaration list of Proud Past Alumni/famous Alumni of University of Allahabad Alumni Association. Also Dr. Pandey is well known for his staying in Allahabad University leaving NCAOR, Goa for the purpose of not his own but for benefit of the common man and it is well known that the K. Banerjee Centre of Atmospheric and Ocean Studies was initially funded be the NCAOR and a lay man who have a little ambition of becoming a good scientist could not leave the source i.e. the NCAOR at the time of 2001 and it was Pandey who sacrifices to fulfil the aim of high authority and highly educated persons of Allahabad at that time and even at this time too. His academics excellence should be searched in his blog which none can give here surviving in Allahabad as a common man and easily working in the University of Allahabad. How he given the good words for the social and religious matter from on which there is no comments from any caste and society. This is because every one finds him from all caste and religion belonging even from a Sanatam Brahmin family. 14.139.244.243 ( talk) 06:44, 6 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  1. ^ “UoA, Alumni”. Alumni web site
  2. ^ “Proud Past of UoA, Alumni Association/Famous Alumni”. Oldest web site of the Allahabad University Alumni Association
  3. ^ “Prous Past Alumni declaration web page capture”. Proud Past Alumni of Allahabad University Alumni Association
  4. ^ “June 2012 i.e. middle age web page of declaration of Proud Past Alumni of University of Allahabad”. Middle age web page of University of Allahabad Alumni web page
  5. ^ “Proud Past supporting web capture”. Proud Past of University of Allahabad alumni Association
  6. ^ “Proud Past of UoA, as on second web page PDF”. Allahabad University Alumni Association
  7. ^ [ https://www.academia.edu/3337883/Allahabad_University_Alumni_Association_AUAA_Ghziabad_chapter_registered_under_Society_Act_1860_with_Registration_No._407_2000_List_of_42_Proud_Past_Alumni_of_the_University_of_Allahabad_not_a_book_but_proof_of_honor_to_42th_personality_“Proud of Past Alumni list as a proof”]
  8. ^ “Proud Past of UoA, DOC”. Allahabad University Alumni Association
  9. ^ “Proud Past of UoA, PDF as on first web page started from 2000 i.e. oldest part 1”. Allahabad University Alumni Association
  10. ^ “Proud Past of UoA, PDF as on first web page started from 2000 i.e. oldest part 2 of part 1 in which Dr. Pandey's name included”. Allahabad University Alumni Association
  11. ^ ““Proud Past of UoA, DOC”. Allahabad University Alumni Association
  • Keep. If any registered Alumni Association keep the name of his Proud of Past Alumni/Famous Alumni on his web page since 2008 to 2012/13 and person is real alumni of the University and also all the details about that paticular alumni is correct and match with his carrier then such declared Proud Past alumnae Dr. Pandey is the real Proud Past and no one should go on exception of any ex-Prime-Minister of India(wrongly quoted). If the University of Allahabad Alumni Association or any other person denie his declaration about the members actually the alumnae of University of Allahabad then this will create a dis-famousion claim by law of India. Pandey is an patent in activities as a true India by the Inter-National Self Servant organization of Allahabad i.e. the national and international thinker of Allahabad and this is the reason he has written clearly each and every message on his blog "Vivekanand and Modern Tradition". His Sanatan/Eternal Brahmin family is the indirect energy of his own and there is no force to force him to speak the untruth thus in a well manner he connected Hindu and his associated religion as 1st part; Islam and his associated wings as 2nd part; and Christian and his associated religion as 3rd part and finally by Shri Ramaism and Shri Krishnaism he connected Islam and Christianity with the Sanatan Hindu i.e. the Hindu as both works parallel either of the Shri Ramaism and Shri Krishnaism respectively. Thus this patent of confluence of Tri-Power/Tri-River/ Triveni/ Prayag/ Allahabad will travel a long way in the International society for a long time. I therefor want the article of this patent of Allahabad i.e. the article of Pandey on the wikipedia for ever so that people could track his activities in future which will be very beneficial for the Indian community and therefore the World community. 117.241.104.19 ( talk) 10:52, 6 August 2014 (UTC) — 117.241.104.19 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Hoary ( talk) 12:51, 6 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Hoary ( talk) 12:51, 6 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Hoary ( talk) 12:51, 6 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I find it extraordinarily difficult to understand the more favorable comments above, but gather that there's a claim that Pandey is notable as a religious thinker and blogger on matters pertaining to Hinduism, Islam and Christianity. If this is so, then people knowledgable about and dispassionately interested in one or more of these religions should be invited to comment. I've therefore transcluded this AfD in the DELSORT page of each of these three religions. I hope that the closing administrator allows time for comments by such people. -- Hoary ( talk) 12:51, 6 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Pandey has no scholarship whatsoever in this area: no published books in WorldCat and no research papers in any humanities journal. Consequently, it is ipso facto clear that he has no notability stemming from whatever knowledge he might have regarding religion. Agricola44 ( talk) 13:20, 6 August 2014 (UTC). reply
  • I don't dispute some of your premisses, Agricola44. Moreover, I can derive no sense from either (A) what little I've glanced at of his writing in English about religion on his blog or (B) the praise for this as presented above. But I'm aware that much (most?) writing about religion makes no sense to me (or/so is deeply soporific). Religious significance (as I very hazily understand it) isn't limited to academic theology. The article " Interfaith dialogue" suggests that, from India, one Morari Bapu is important. The (very dodgy looking) article on the latter doesn't hint that he has what would normally be called scholarship, any published books in WorldCat or any research papers in any humanities journal. (Rather, he gives "9 day-long sermons".) So I'd be interested to see what those people who, unlike me, can make sense of religion would dispassionately say about religious significance (if any) here. -- Hoary ( talk) 23:32, 6 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Article created on the day before birth day of Dr. Pandey (DOB:01-08-1976) who given important facts1) that Islam works parallel to Shri Ramaism and Christianity works parallel to Shri Krishnaims and as Shri Ram is elder than Shri Krishna therefore Islam is elder than Christianity.2) Kashi- Varanasi is the first place of Lord Shiva on the Earth and after that he went to Mount Kailash. Lord Shiva originated at Kashi with his tri-power/Trishul Shakti i.e. with Kedareswar, Mahamrityunjay and Vishveswar/ Vishwanath. These fact are very interesting results of his thoughts on his blog "Vivekanand and Modern Tradition". The conclusion of his blog by religious experts and philosopher is very important for our scattered world society who are fighting against each other for there tiny selfishness and identity. I hope the goal of Dr. Pandey is to make the world as a village and people of world as a family. Some one in the debate said that tracking of Dr. Pandey will be easy by world community if his article will be here is almost better if we catch and read Dr. Pandey as an academician, scientist, philosopher, blogger, a common man of the world society with a permanent service in University of Allahabad and a villager of his both residence Bishunpur-Jaunpur and Ramapur which also say that he is from the Sanatan/Eternal Brahmin Family too. At least he influenced from Indian Institute of Science Bangalore, Banaras Hindu University and University of Allahabad where is good existence of all the religions. I suggest to keep him here. 117.199.150.36 ( talk) 06:38, 7 August 2014 (UTC) — 117.199.150.36 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
  • Comment. I have some of the references of his publications present on Worldcat also his own article on Worldcat library and other internatinal forum:

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

  • Comment: he may have written papers, but Google Scholar shows that virtually nobody is taking any notice -- he has an h-index of only 2 (the lowest I've ever seen when considering WP:PROF at AfD). And if he's seriously arguing that Islam is older than Christianity, then WP:FRINGE applies too. -- 101.117.59.207 ( talk) 09:23, 7 August 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Comment. We read above (in a contribution of this person in Allahabad) that Pandey given important facts1) that Islam works parallel to Shri Ramaism and Christianity works parallel to Shri Krishnaims [sic] and as Shri Ram is elder than Shri Krishna therefore Islam is elder than Christianity. Of course what really matters is the degree to which independent, published, reliable sources say that Pandey gave (or given) important facts. Perhaps an IP can provide links. In the meantime, though: This seems Extremely Deep Thought. The reasoning seems to be: "If (i) x "works parallel to" belief in a, (ii) y "works parallel to" belief in b, (iii) a is older than b, then x is older than y. ¶ According to some encyclopedia I found on the web, Islam is very roughly six hundred years younger than Christianity. I take the IP's word for the claim that "Islam works parallel to Shri Ramaism and Christianity works parallel to Shri [Krishnaism]". I'm not familiar with "work parallel to" in a formalism; I can't think what it means other than "is parallel to". If Islam is parallel to Ramaism and Christianity is parallel to Krishnaism, then (as "p is parallel to q" is commutative) Ramaism is parallel to Islam and Krishnaism. And by the IP's account of Pandey's logic, Ramaism is therefore younger than Krishnaism. -- Hoary ( talk) 13:16, 7 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comments. I am very agree with the Dr. Pandey's blog's every statement and after realization in deep I also found each religion meets to Sanatan Hindu and also it is similar in some extent to Swami Vivekananda. But now Dr. Pandey completed it being a Sanatan/eternal Brahmin while Swami Vivekanand was not a perfect Brahmin but only a Rajaswa Brahmin/Kayashth of Bengali Hindu family and pupil of Swami Ramakrishna Paramhans who belong from perfect Brahmin family. That is why some thing was missing with him due to fact of two bodies view differences although it was a good effort of Swami ji(conversation converted in some extent to lag in exact meaning). His brief biography on Worldcat library significant of what? [1] 14.139.244.247 ( talk) 10:26, 7 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  1. ^ "Dr. Pandey's biography in Worldcat Library". Worldcat library have Dr. Pandey's biography
  • Keep. As per our best knowledge, belief and faith in the religion Dr. Pandey's view on his blog is to make a gather the scattered world indeed and I found him most notable person of the world in these days of disturbed world. He is good academician or bad it is not matter here but as I know from the different sources that he was not able to get the time to make himself a very best scientist and academician but he was overladed with the responsibilities which was based on the behaviour and cooperation of others and whose view was also different with him but finaly he succeed due to his great resistance power and personality. Now the person and student will take benefit of his aim to become a good scientist and academician fore ever. He was pillar of that work which gives immense pleasure to the humanity and now it is over. Therefore I need his article on wikipedia and thanks in advance for keep him here. 14.139.244.243 ( talk) 11:45, 7 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. It is clear from debate that article on Pandey is notable as per his over all noble personalty. We have a better future under his guidance and a better academic and scientist hidden in him but he could not get to perform on the platform of UoA because of the international ship which he was leading for make a safe future of world on that ship others have different view and goal against him. I expect that in all respect pandey's article on wikipedia is most needful and extraordinary as looks from his blog. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.89.128.63 ( talk • contribs) — 59.89.128.63 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • ‘‘‘Keep’’’. About the matter in his blog and benefit to the World community regarding religious and philosophical view and athentification and make perfect the work of Swami Vivekananda we have to look back ground of Dr. Vivek Kumar Pandey: he is from a village Ramapur donated by Muslim/ Islam following Landlord and his grand father Bachan Ram’s closed friend in Mumbai was great christian of India George Fernandes during the leadership of trade union; he belong from a family of Sanatan/Eternal Kashyap/ Kashmir Gotriya Brahmin; and he born in Sanatan/Eternal Vashishtha/ Mount Kailash Gotriya Brahmin family of his father’s maternal father belongs to Bishunpur donated by Kshatriya landlord where he live for whole life before he came to Prayag/ Triveni/ Allahabad and people of these village are Sanatan/ Eternal Gautam/ Gorakhpur/ Mount Kailash Gotriya (Baudh:Gautam Budhdha:Gautam Gotriya Kshatriya]] Brahmin. ----Please tell how such person will not complete the aim of Swami Vivekananda by his blog “Vivekanand and Modern Tradition” [1]. I understand that the blog of Pandey is view of the world as he belong from the family of Prem Chand Pandey and also among his closest who is world fame personality from India. Thus I personaly found Dr. Pandey notable who maintain the order of Professor Prem Chand Pandey for completeing the aim and objective of his Guru Professor Murali Manohar Joshi and Professor Srivastava Ji for the University of Allahabad, India and thus for the World community. 27.124.24.6 ( talk) 14:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC) — 27.124.24.6 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
  1. ^ “Vivekanand and Modern Tradition”. Blog of Dr. Vivek Kumar Pandey
  1. ^ “Membership No. F/347”. (PDF) Society of Earth Scientist we page have record of the Fellow of Dr. Vivek Kumar Pandey
  2. ^ “Pandey is life member of International Academy of Physical Sciences in Academy membership no. N14231”. Pandey life member of IAPS
  3. ^ “IMS Directory of Life member tag have membership no. 1034 for Dr. Vivek Kumar Pandey”. Indian meteorological Society web Site have life membership record of Dr. Vivek Kumar Pandey
  • Delete and salt. Does not show any notability as concerns Wikipedia, and far from it, it reads like a CV for a job application. I have never seen a Wikipedia article scrape the barrel so definitively: "high marks in High School examination"; "his blog view page more than 25000 within one year"; "1st prize in science quize". And this reads like it was included so as to pander to the government or an employer who might be reading the article rather than a general reader: "Moderate thoughts of Nationalism and Internationalism but he involves himself in such activities in his own personal routine time after performing his daily academic and scientific responsibilities." - Lopifalko ( talk)
  • Comment. As per actual date of birth he born on 11:11( November 11):1975 i.e. on the National Education Day (India). Please tell me how many paper published by Shri Ram and Shri Krishna? Answer comes that all the paper published by the Valmiki and Tulsidas and Maharshi Vyas ji based on their life. How many paper published by Brahma, Vishnu and Mahesh? Answer comes that the whole humanity of the world based on Seven Brahmarshi i.e. Saptarshi have written so many papers on then and still there is no any end of this and still the Rishis/Scientists are writing and publishing paper on them or on the Super personality created by them and also many papers are being published on the combined of the Trimurti i.e Brahma+Vishnu+Mahesh i.e. on the Parambrahm i.e. on the Parmeshwar i.e. on the God i.e. on the Allah i.e. on the Brahm i.e. on the Sita- Rama i.e. on the Radha- Krishna i.e. on the Ram-Janki i.e. on the Radhe-Krishna. Publication of paper needed a base and that base is Dr. Vivek Kumar Pandey since 2001 for the humanity. If you have no resources and no topic then how and on what you will write a paper. If there is no existence of Nature/Women and Purush/Men then even Parambrahm/Brahm have no any shape and thus this universe have no life/humanity and in such case life will combined with matter i.e. the Brahm and thus he will called the perfect Allah and in case of Dr. Pandey in 2001, when not even a single a family members either men and women were with him i.e. not understanding his grief but only want to fulfil the dream and objective of Professor Murali Manohar Joshi (i.e the supreme God of Allahabad at that particular time), which was given to solve to his family(own and maternal uncle's) in that case he fulfil this with his physical presence(not from outside) means such work one do from out side in general case(the work was to save the humanity of the world generated by Saptarshi of Prayag/Allahabad not only a foundation of a centre of university and also to found a substitute of the basic building block of the society from Allahabad who will take place of the old age Brahma, Vishnu and Mahesh present in the humanity in the India and world and in more extent that is over). 14.139.244.243 ( talk) 10:44, 8 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Hello to you at Allahabad University! Sorry, but gods and numerology fail to excite me. Instead let's talk about the number three. Just today, you deleted the AfD template from the article once, twice, thrice. Why is this? Do you find "Please do not remove or change this AfD message until the issue is settled" hard to understand? -- Hoary ( talk) 13:25, 8 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment -- This is a horrible article. It does not help that so many "friends and supporters" seem to be intervening. The question is ultimately whether the subject's academic publications are imnportant enough to meet WP:ACADEMIC. Running a blog certainly does not amount to that, nor (unless he is supposed to be a theologian) should anything related to Hindu or other gods. If he has done (and published in peer-reviewed jounrals) important academic work that work needs to be properly described and cited. If not, the article should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterkingiron ( talk • contribs)
  • Given to me no reasonable sources. Delete I want to see this, horrible article that seems, victim of bable fish it is, Yoda me told. Serten ( talk) 15:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. After all the article is not less degree notable than any most important article on the Wikipedia. There is many aspects which have any source on the web page of the internet as once ability can be judge by a personal meet with him. I have a look on Dr. Pandey and his personalities personally and socially from near and there and found unique on this earth. I just say that on the over all debates that it is Dr. Pandey who is more important than the his article on this Wikipedia. Keep it fore ever to track his life graph which will be going to rise very fast in near future on the world map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.153.251 ( talk) 16:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC) — 117.199.153.251 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
  • Keep. Article is notable one and am agree with the just above request to keep. Pandey is the more over important and notable than he linked on any web page. We should have his article for future perspective as the IP argued about Dr. Pandey. 117.199.154.35 ( talk) 11:16, 9 August 2014 (UTC) — 117.199.154.35 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Rcsprinter123 (converse) @ 12:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC) reply

The New Press (imprint)

The New Press (imprint) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Apparently non-notable (though it's almost impossible to tell with such a commonplace name). Appears to fail WP:CORP. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 00:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

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

  • Keep. No, it's not almost impossible to tell, it's just harder to tell than it is for a publisher called "Hamish Hamilton" or "Phaidon" or whatever. For example, googling "the new press" -leveson -greenslade site:theguardian.com brings a review of a notable book published by NP, an obituary of its founder, and more. The obituary prompts me to add "Schiffrin" to the mix; unsurprisingly, googling "the new press" schiffrin site:nytimes.com brings a promising selection of sources. ¶ Incidentally, after this AfD has run its course and the article given a new lease of life, it should be moved to " The New Press". -- Hoary ( talk) 00:55, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:53, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:54, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:54, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Publisher of much renown, widely regarded for innovation in its field, has published numerous notable authors and notable award winning works. Widely referenced from a good number of broadsheet newspapers. There is nothing not to like here. - Lopifalko ( talk)
  • Keep Agree with above. -- Green C 04:34, 3 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Kmccook, Hoary & Lopifalko. Notable publisher of numerous notable authors & works. Also agree w/ Hoary - should be renamed The New Press, as no disambiguation in the title is necessary.-- JayJasper ( talk) 17:53, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

GetAuto

GetAuto (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not seem to meet WP:ORG. All of the sources seem to be rehashed press releases, and none seem to really meet WP:RS. 2 of the sources are from the subject. A search for sources did not turn up anything aside from more rehashed press releases, advertisements, or promotional websites. TLSuda ( talk) 00:25, 24 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker talk 00:15, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2014_August_1&oldid=1142629875"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 31 July 2 August >

Purge server cache

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

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

Corey Fogelmanis

Corey Fogelmanis (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD deleted. Not a notable actor per WP:NACTOR. Only two minor roles and listed in a recurring role for a recently started series. Even with series recurring role does not have multiple significant roles. Fails WP:GNG as has received no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Any mention in sources is passing mention in stories about Girl Meets World and in a cast bio on the website for a short. Geraldo Perez ( talk) 23:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:40, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:40, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete fails WP:GNG, fails WP:ENT, for lack of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Too young to have garnered the necessary experience and coverage. WP:TOOSOON. -- Bejnar ( talk) 22:12, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Too soon for a bio at this time. I don't see any non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 00:30, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, per above in RE: too soon for a bio and fails WP:ENT, the only links are to IMDB and twitter. This individual has not done enough notable work. Maybe later in his career? Jab843 ( talk) 03:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per the others, fails WP:ENT. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 12:40, 8 August 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Creative industry in Brazil

Creative industry in Brazil (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

  • Comment Not to impugn the nominator's judgement, but was the edit summary of the article creator This is the translation of a PT Wikipedia article" missed?   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 00:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply
    • No, this was not missed. But perhaps you have missed that user Sistema Firjan has written an article that is mainly about the company/company products of Firjan. The Banner  talk 20:02, 3 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and rigorously cleanup - I see no validity in the deletion rationale of 'advertising' which can be resolved by rigorous editorial action. It is certainly a poor article but the subject is clearly notable and there are a whole bunch of supporting sources and more are available. The fact that the creator may have a COI is a matter for cleanup and for closely examining the content, and the other apparently promotional article that he created is being separately considered. When we have a clearly encyclopaedic concept, we should be cleaning and improving (or perhaps robustly stubbing), not deleting. The Whispering Wind ( talk) 22:47, 3 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep WP:COI is a serious problem, but not a valid reason for deletion. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 12:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC) reply
    • I know that but the nomination is for advertising, not COI. The Banner  talk 20:40, 8 August 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Joseph Fadelle

Joseph Fadelle (  | 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)

Fails WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR. Only published single book, which has published 50k copies. Can't find anything on Google Iraq. scope_creep talk 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:35, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:35, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:35, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:35, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:35, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: his book was translated into at least 6 languages; there are various references in French media and probably also in other countries; he is frequently interviewed by French media and invited to talk in conferences in France. He is not particularly known in Iraq especially under this name. Peter17 ( talk) 06:45, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply
What are the other references and any names attached to him. scope_creep talk 16:59 02 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Keep French Wikipedia points us to some sources, e.g., [3] and [4] that may help satisfy WP:BASIC. Searching for "Mohammed Moussaoui" may turn up others. 24.151.10.165 ( talk) 21:00, 2 August 2014 (UTC) This French book review is quite in depth. 24.151.10.165 ( talk) 21:05, 2 August 2014 (UTC) French Wikipedia's article on his book Le Prix à payer (livre) contains additional references such as [5], [6] and [7]. Fadelle is the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources per WP:BASIC. 24.151.10.165 ( talk) 23:31, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep It would really be better to get English sources, but that's not an absolute requirement for passing the notability test. This seems more like a poorly written article without proper formatting of sources than deletion material. MezzoMezzo ( talk) 04:22, 3 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- 50,000 copies is a substantial number for a Christian book. His story of fleeing from being murdered by his family is regreatably typcial for those who leave Islam. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:12, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. Bbb23 ( talk) 23:03, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Ariana Carly

Ariana Carly (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

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

Rajesh More

Rajesh More (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Minor fashionista who works as costume designer in Telugu film industry. Fails WP:BIO scope_creep 22:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete • Fails WP:ANYBIO. CutestPenguin { talk • contribs} 12:53, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete . Per nomination . No significance contributions or achievements. Most links only have passing mentions - SaHiL ( talk) 10:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Per nomination. No significant coverage in the sources provided, and I can't seem to find any, either. Unfortunately, his first and last names are both rather common, making sorting sources a right royal pain in the arse. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 12:50, 8 August 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Michael Britton

Michael Britton (  | 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 and WP:POLITICIAN scope_creep talk 21:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:17, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • As usual, unelected candidates for office do not qualify for Wikipedia articles just for being candidates, per WP:NPOL. And even if he wins election in October he still wouldn't qualify for inclusion here, because St. Catharines (pop. ~130K) is not in the narrow range of internationally famous metropolitan megacities for which we actually extend notability to the city councillors. Plus for bonus points, the article is entirely unsourced — and as I've said all too frequently of late, I have a significant tendency to suspect conflict of interest editing by the campaign manager when a brochure about an unelected candidate shows up as its creator's first-ever contribution to Wikipedia. Delete with fire. Bearcat ( talk) 23:20, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. A clear-cut case. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 01:13, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Per the excellent argument by Bearcat. The one source is primary, so there is not sufficient indication of notability. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 13:10, 8 August 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Glamarus

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ( Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica 1000 04:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Customer Service System

Customer Service System (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:19, 25 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:19, 25 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:19, 25 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep—A quick google search turned up
  • A long article in New Scientist. [1]
  • A book [2] which describes the CSS in great detail over several chapters. While the book is part of the BT Telecommunications Series, the publisher is independent of BT.
  • A (likely) peer-reviewed publication [3] in the BT Technology Journal (reprinted in the above book).
  • An substantial article [4] in The Independent.
  • Another substantial article [5] in The Guardian (needs verification, as this is a copy of the original story).
I'm seeing several more passing references in the software engineering literature. The system appears to have been unusually large (and unusually long-lived), and enough people wrote about it at length that I think we can create a pretty decent article. A move to Customer service software (BT) might be in order if the article survives the AfD. Lesser Cartographies ( talk) 09:20, 25 July 2014 (UTC) reply

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

  1. ^ a b Conner, Steve (23 January 1986). "Your computerised phone bill is delayed". New Scientist. 109 (1492): 28.
  2. ^ a b West, S.; Norris, M.; Stockman, S., eds. (1997). Computing Systems for Global Telecommunications (first ed.). Chapman & Hall. ISBN  0412825406.
  3. ^ a b Harrison, P. F. (January 1997). "Customer Service System—past, present and future". BT Technology Journal. 15 (1). London: 29–45.(subscription required)
  4. ^ a b Bowen, David (19 December 1994). "Network: A real know-it-all at BT". The Independent.
  5. ^ a b Neesham, Claire (31 May 1990). "BT express replaces the shunters". The Guardian. Manchester. p. 31.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker talk 20:37, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Deepak Singh

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:Notability, the article lacks General notability guideline as well as references given in the article does not have Significant coverage. CutestPenguin { talk • contribs} 06:56, 25 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker talk 20:35, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Hi-tech export

Hi-tech export (  | 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 company. Available sources amount to mentions in passing, but do not add up to WP:CORPDEPTH. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 13:34, 24 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:54, 24 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:54, 24 July 2014 (UTC) reply
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 20:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 06:40, 10 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Carmelita Little Turtle

Carmelita Little Turtle (  | 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:GNG. OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:19, 24 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:51, 24 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:51, 24 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:51, 24 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker talk 20:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, I found some sources:
    • Tharp, Paula E. Shooting constructed realities: the self-defining art of Native American women photographers Shelley Niro and Carm Little Turtle and selected poets. Diss. University of Oklahoma, 1997.
    • Biographical entries in:
      • Rushing III, W. Jackson, ed. Native American art in the Twentieth Century: makers, meanings, histories. Routledge, 2013.
      • Hillstrom, Laurie Collier, and Kevin Hillstrom. "Carm, Little Turtle." Contemporary Women Artists. Detroit: St. James, 1999. 405-06. Print.
      • Congdon, Kristin G., and Kara Kelley Hallmark. Twentieth Century United States Photographers: A Student's Guide. Greenwood Publishing Group, 2008. (possibly, I can not read the full work)
    • A many page interview in Abbott, Lawrence, ed. I stand in the center of the good: interviews with contemporary Native American artists. U of Nebraska Press, 1994.
And so appears to meet WP:GNG. Antrocent ( ♫♬) 21:08, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
@ Antrocent: Mention is not enough. OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:04, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply
@ Arxiloxos: There are many thousands of profiles on highbeam that fails WP:GNG, there might have been mention of this person but it is still not enough for passing WP:GNG. OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:06, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply
These are not "mentions". The Contemporary Authors listing (and the sources mentioned by Antrocent) confirm that she has been the focus of substantive coverage (see e.g. I Stand in the Center of the Good: Interviews with Contemporary Native American Artists ( University of Nebraska Press, 1994) [10] and has been collected in multiple notable museums, thus passes WP:CREATIVE. -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 16:50, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Trafford Sub Aqua Club

Trafford Sub Aqua Club (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC) reply

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker talk 20:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Mitgift

Mitgift (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:39, 23 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:39, 23 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker talk 20:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - The band itself seems to be susceptible to AfD. The article does not provide anything to suggest that this album is notable.-- Rpclod ( talk) 02:41, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Žan Benedičič

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

  • To top that, he's just signed for Leeds United on loan. -- Mr. Mario ( talk) 06:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Žan Benedičič (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 19:54, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:23, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:23, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:23, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Capri Centre Mall

Capri Centre Mall (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
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. Spinning Spark 01:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Royal City Centre

Royal City Centre (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:19, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

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

Yaohan Centre

Yaohan Centre (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

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

  • Delete Google search failed to turn up reference which would satisfy WP:N. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:46, 10 August 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Letter to a CES Director

Letter to a CES Director (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Virality isn't notability, but I did add a hostile source (Christensen) which also lists the work as 'viral'. Darmokand ( talk) 05:03, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:17, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply

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

    • LOL Are you Jeremy? You're the author of the article too. Who do you think you're fooling? Tkfy7cf ( talk) 05:29, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply
No, Tk, I have absolutely no ties to the book's author. I learned about it when it was featured in a 3-hr in-depth interview on John Dehlin's show Mormon Stories. -- Darmokand ( talk) 11:48, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply
For what it's worth, FairMormon isn't a wiki, it's a private organization that happens to use MediaWiki software to host their organization's statments. But it's not a true "anyone can edit" wiki-- we can use it as a WP:RS for the views of FairMormon. -- Darmokand ( talk) 21:49, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Point taken that this is a private wiki by authorized FairMormon editors. I'll change my vote (can I do that?) to weak indifference. —— Rich jj ( talk) 22:36, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Only blogs and forums talk about this letter, so not enough sources to make it notable. Frmorrison ( talk) 21:18, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply
The Interpreter (journal), Mormon Stories Podcast, Salt Lake Tribune story and FairMormon should all qualify as "coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". -- Darmokand ( talk) 21:44, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply
I agree that these are independent, and probably sufficient, though not a long or impressive list. I read WP:GNG again and it seems the bar is fairly low. Interpreter is probably the best as an online journal that can also do print issues (or by the article). FairMormon and Mormon Stories are probably good sources, recognizing their respective biases. The SL Trib one is really a blog post about the LCS Business College spamming, and I thought the author was Peggy Fletcher Stack (who is shown in the header), but the article appears to be signed by "Pamela Manson". I often like print sources by traditional institutions (newspapers, academic journals, large magazines or publishing houses), but these sources are fine, just not ideal. And earlier I muddied the waters with blogs, but the authors, Jeff Lindsay and Brian C. Hales, are recognized notable figures in Mormon apologetics. —— Rich jj ( talk) 22:36, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply
An open letter was written criticizing a particular theology, a couple websites opposed to the theology picked it up, and then a couple websites supporting the theology (unofficial volunteer websites) responded to the letter's arguments. Nothing notable about the letter or the events surrounding it from what I can see, unless you consider spamming a few hundred people with the letter a notable event. Hence, this article can only reiterate the contents of the letter, which is WP:NOT what Wikipedia is about ("...articles on works of non-fiction, including documentaries, research books and papers, religious texts, and the like, should contain more than a recap or summary of the works' contents" WP:INDISCRIMINATE). — Eustress 03:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Delete Doesn't look like it satisfies WP:GNG. The only two references I can find demonstrating its notability are two links to Mormon online journals. The Salt Lake Tribune article is a pretty significant independent source, but there's a grand total of one sentence dedicated to the subject of this article. Karzelek ( talk) 22:45, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete IMO this doesn't satisfy the "significant coverage" criteria of WP:GNG, which means at this point it is extremely difficult to make this any more than a summary-only description of the work. Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball, so unless and until the Letter gets significant coverage in independent sources or has been shown to have a significant impact, then I don't think it crosses the notability threshold. -- FyzixFighter ( talk) 16:45, 9 August 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spinning Spark 01:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Jessica Clark (writer)

Jessica Clark (writer) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:15, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:15, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:15, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Inadequate sources. Substantial career achievement is expected for a Wikipedia BLP. Not the case here. Xxanthippe ( talk) 22:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC). reply
  • Delete Unreferenced BLP. No indication that the subject satisfies the notability guidelines. Safiel ( talk) 05:29, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment What is the difference between Head editor and Executive editor. According to WP:NACADEMICS, we are suppose to keep anyone who has served as a head editor.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:24, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment She was chief editor of a magazine, as opposed to a journal. That MIGHT confer notability, but under a different notability standard than WP:NACADEMICS. Even so, the article is entirely unsourced and unless somebody can place some reliable sources, I would not be able to change my stance from delete. The lack of BLP sources is enough on its own to require deletion of the article at this time. If the article is sourced by reliable sources that indicate notability, I will reconsider. Safiel ( talk) 17:39, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply
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) NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 10:41, 8 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Meadowmont, North Carolina

Meadowmont, North Carolina (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable small community. The sources listed include no third-party reliable sources, so WP:GNG is not met.

The same set of sources was assessed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meadowmont Village, where the article Meadowmont Village was deleted. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 19:10, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply

  • Keep The Meadowmont is a notable community not only in that it contains within its boundaries a property listed on the National Register of Historic Places by the National Park Service of the U.S. Dept. of the Interior, but is also a complete community hosting part of the University of North Carolina, residential areas, shopping areas, offices, and hotels, and plays a significant part in the lives of the people who live, work, study, and visit there. While the article did borrow the sources of the now-deleted Meadowmont Village (essentially a shopping center within Meadowmont) article, it now incorporates an additional link to the Meadowmont House's official listing on the National Register of Historic Place's website. That website is specifically dedicated to identifying properties that are generally notable in the history of the United States after meeting stringent qualifications as arbited by a cabinet-level agency of the United States government and certainly meets Wikipedia's general notability requirements. A community that incorporates a site that is generally notable is also generally notable. Larry Grossman ( talk) 19:50, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • I've now added an additional link to an article discussing the Meadowmont House from the "N&O" ( News & Observer), the regional daily newspaper of North Carolina's Research Triangle area, which is another independent, reliable source meeting Wikipedia's standards. Larry Grossman ( talk) 20:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
    @ Larry Grossman: it would be better for you to have explicitly disclosed that you are the article's creator. The two sources which you have added consist of one broken link [16] and an unlinked reference to a newspaper article with neither page number or article title. Without a link or other info, editor's can't verify the newspaper source, nor determine whether it meets the tests set out in WP:GNG.
    Even if the sources can be verified, they may be evidence of the notability of that house, but not of the surrounding area. So there are still no independent reliable sources which could evidence the notability of the community which you claim surrounds the house. I was not aware of any policy or guideline to support the claim that community that incorporates a site that is generally notable is also generally notable. Is that just your opinion, Larry, or do you have evidence that this a consensus view?
    It would help considerably if Larry would take the time to study WP:N, and recognise that the commentary in the first sentence of his keep !vote (that it "plays a significant part in the lives of the people who live, work, study, and visit there") is irrelevant to an AFD discussion: it confuses the notion of importance with that of notability. --- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 23:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Thank you, BrownHairedGirl. Yes, I am the article's creator. I'll review the notability guidelines you mentioned over the next few days and improve the article to meet them if that can be done. In the meantime, I'd appreciate if deletion could be deferred until I've had a few days to digest the guidelines and apply them. ...and I apologize for the broken link. I created it by searching the NPS's website to the page that lists the Meadowmont House as a historical property but it looks like that a dynamic link that expires, so I'll need to find a fixed link that others can pull up, and that will be my first improvement task. Larry Grossman ( talk) 01:04, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply

I've now added the title and page number reference to the article in N&O Profiling the Meadowmont House. Larry Grossman ( talk) 01:32, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply

I've now fixed the link to the National Park Service's website for their National Register of Historic Places. You can now find the Meadowmont House's listing by going to http://www.nps.gov/nr/research/data_downloads/Main.xlsx and then searching on reference numer: 85001554. Larry Grossman ( talk) 05:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC


Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Found a good amount of significant secondary coverage here and here and here. This was after only a few seconds of looking. -- Oakshade ( talk) 01:46, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

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

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

Old discussion from VfD

Discussion concluded and article kept on May 28, 2004

From Cleanup: Europe, the Middle East and Africa - dict. def. (I moved this to vfd from cleanup and fully support its deletion - SimonP)

  • Delete. All geographic articles are on their own pages at Wikipedia (e.g. Europe is at Europe.) Who would put all these at one article?? 66.32.80.15 01:11, 21 May 2004 (UTC) reply
    • Google it, it's not intended as a goegraphical article. It's a commonly used abbreviation. -- Starx 02:37, 21 May 2004 (UTC) reply
  • It is redirected from EMEA, maybe it should be merged into that article and deleted afterwards? -- till we ☼☽ | Talk 22:25, 21 May 2004 (UTC) reply
    • I don't understand what you want done. How do we merge something into a redirect? - SimonP 20:57, May 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I've expanded it slightly. Not a dicdef as I understand it (i.e. I would expect to find this defined here, not in Wiktionary). -- sjorford 14:19, 25 May 2004 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Nothing in here that couldn't be found out from looking up the three parts separately. DJ Clayworth 17:54, 25 May 2004 (UTC) reply
  • I just looked it up because the initials stood on the rear end of my laptop. So I guess it is useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.136.155.218 ( talk) 21:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Hilton Liverpool Hotel

Hilton Liverpool Hotel (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:11, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:11, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as no evidence of any notability, I was gonna suggest redirecting but since Liverpool isn't even mentioned on Hilton Worldwide I see no point. – Davey2010 • (talk) 22:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per above, I see no notability. Jab843 ( talk) 04:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Very ordinary, run of the mill three-star hotel. No special notability. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:03, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Artista Eli

Artista Eli (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD ( talk) 19:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, considering I added the 'notability' template. I can't find a single hint of reliable coverage about Artista Eli or Helen Shaw, in Spanish or English. Sionk ( talk) 21:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: I have not located any substantial coverage of the subject; any claim to notability appears to rest on the page reference into a publication on The Stuckists. Lacking its detail and noting it is a single page, it seems unlikely that it stands as sufficient to meet WP:ARTIST. AllyD ( talk) 20:22, 10 August 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Mandatory retirement. ( Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica 1000 01:35, 9 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Enforced retirement

Enforced retirement (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

  • Comment: Mandatory retirement is not the same as enforced retirement. Jonas Vinther ( talk) 17:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
According to whom? These suggest otherwise: 1, 2, 3. Tchaliburton ( talk) 17:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Animal welfare during World War II

Animal welfare during World War II (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article appears to be factual, but the way the information is synthesized is a case of original research which violates WP:NOT#ESSAY. I'm having difficulty finding any credible academic sources that have specifically studied animal welfare during this time frame. Lacking this the subject fails WP:GNG. Animal welfare is a notable subject, but we can't create articles about notable subjects with arbitrary time frames. If there are reliable sources covering this specific topic then I will retract this nomination. Tchaliburton ( talk) 17:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply

  • Comment: I can assure you, Tchaliburton, that the are reliable sources covering the specific topic; the article is simply incomplete. Jonas Vinther ( talk) 17:47, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Perhaps the article should be userfied until you have included those sources demonstrating notability. Then it could be moved into the article space when it's ready. Tchaliburton ( talk) 17:51, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Perhaps. But ... I think that when it's "out in the open" common editors will have a chance to see it and contribute to it - nobody's going to find it in my sandbox. Jonas Vinther ( talk) 18:02, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:04, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • I'm undecided about deletion, but I do want to note that we already have Animal welfare in Nazi Germany. I suppose the question here is whether reliable sources indicate that there is notable material about other countries that is specific to that time period. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:40, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
There does seem to be quite a lot of literature specific to Nazi Germany. Not so much with any of the other countries. That makes sense given the political and philosophical changes during the Nazi regime. It's also worth noting that Animal welfare in Nazi Germany covers a wider time frame than WWII because the Nazi era is not synonymous with the WWII era. Tchaliburton ( talk) 00:12, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Gentlemen, I can assure you that all the country's mentioned in the article, there is substantial reliable sources on, otherwise I would not have added them. The article is simply incomplete, as I stated before. Perhaps I was stupid to make a real article before it was finish or much longer. Jonas Vinther ( talk) 13:18, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply
No, not stupid at all! Please just make sure that you have secondary sources that indicate that, for each country included, there is actually a subject for that time period that should be treated as distinct and notable, relative to times before and after. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 00:07, 3 August 2014 (UTC) reply
I can assure you Tryptofish I have the secondary sources - once again - it's simply incomplete. I will resume work on the article shortly. Jonas Vinther ( talk) 16:15, 3 August 2014 (UTC) reply
I think you should retract your deletion, Tryptofish. Jonas Vinther ( talk) 17:17, 3 August 2014 (UTC) reply
I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you are referring to. Please explain. If I deleted something that I should not have, I'll certainly fix it, but I don't know what this is. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:47, 3 August 2014 (UTC) reply
I have plenty of reliable, independent, third-party sources to massive expand this article. There is defiantly enough sources to cover the topics mentioned and more. I will began the expansion sooner or later. I'm simply saying, as you suggested yourself in case there should be enough sources or coverage, that you should retract your deletion. You understand now, Tryptofish? Jonas Vinther ( talk) 00:15, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply
OK, I think you are saying that you want me to change my "undecided" comment to "keep". (In reality, I never endorsed deletion so far.) I'm comfortable leaving what I said as it is, pending further discussion here. I could be persuaded to "keep" sooner by seeing some key sources that would unambiguously establish the other countries as noteworthy and distinct topics during the time period (beyond just statements that such sources exist). I could also be persuaded to delete by arguments that such sources really do not exist, although at the moment I'm leaning towards erring on the side of giving the page more time. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Grrrrr! I'm such a moron, I confused you with Tchaliburton. I'm so sorry, Tryptofish. All the previous messages of mine were meant for Tchaliburton. Jonas Vinther ( talk) 22:11, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply
-- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:12, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Reply: Jonas Vinther, I'm still not seeing any references that focus on the WWII period. The closest are the references that discuss animal welfare in Nazi Germany. The section on Britain still strikes me as original research and there is nothing about any of the other belligerents (in fact, most of the belligerents aren't even listed). I'm not saying that this article can't be notable, I'm just saying it's not ready yet. I would support converting this to a draft in your user space until it's ready. Tchaliburton ( talk) 03:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- This is a mere essay, not an encyclopedic article. I did hear something that a lot of British people had their pets put donw at the oubreak of war, perhaps because they did not think they would be able to feed them, when food was rationed. Otherwise, I doubt animal welfare in UK or US was much different in 1940 from 1935 or 1948. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:50, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Fine - then delete it, and I'll re-create it when I made it a FA-class article in my userbox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonas Vinther ( talk • contribs) 17:31, August 5, 2014‎
If that's how this ends, it doesn't have to be deleted. You can just have it moved into your user space. But if you can provide, here, a list of the kinds of sources editors are asking for, we might decided to "keep". -- Tryptofish ( talk) 18:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply
I realize I could do that. But, without sounding too negative, sounds like a lot of work just to prove that I have enough reliable, third-party, independent sources. Then I'd rather complete it in my userbox. Jonas Vinther ( talk) 20:01, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Move to user space, per the request directly above. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:18, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Actually, I have already copy + paste everything into my sandbox, so might as well just delete it, and I'll re-crate it later. Jonas Vinther ( talk) 12:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Protestant Nationalist Party

Protestant Nationalist Party (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Non-notable, per nom. Fails WP:GNG & WP:ORG.-- JayJasper ( talk) 20:40, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Can't find any reason to keep. Stacie Croquet ( talk) 00:57, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - per nom. Snappy ( talk) 15:06, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. If the creator suggests deletion, and there is not substantial other contributions from others (and there seem not to be, from quick review of article's history), then delete. I hate "fake AFD's" where a creator-nominator suggests an article for deletion when they wish for it to be kept, but they want something else: affirmation, to pre-empt a real AFD, i dunno what other bad reason. Here, the creator-nominator seems serious they want it deleted. Just delete. -- do ncr am 05:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Amrit Row

Amrit Row (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD ( talk) 19:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Searches have turned up nothing beyond a bare-bones one-line listing in Apollo for his 2003 Watershed exhibition, which is far from enough for the WP:CREATIVE criteria. AllyD ( talk) 19:43, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:47, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • DElete -- I detect hints that he earns his living by other measn than his art. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:51, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Steve Milton

Steve Milton (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:37, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:37, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Bhaskar Roy

Bhaskar Roy (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prod removed by the creator. The texts of the article exhibit some sign of significance of the subject. So, it is here. Subject does not appear to have significant coverage in multiple secondary, independent and reliable sources, therefore it fails Wikipedia general notability guideline and Wikipedia notability guideline for biographies, and qualifies for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia deletion policy for not meeting notatbility standard. Nothing helpful found on Google news and Google books. Well, that's not a standard for inclusion, but just an indication. Please do not get confused the subject with Roy Bhaskar, which is very diff. person. Anupmehra - Let's talk! 14:02, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete • as per nomination. CutestPenguin { talk • contribs} 12:55, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete . per nomination. No links even in the article that support whatever its contents claim about Roy. -- SaHiL ( talk) 10:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

DWFL-FM

DWFL-FM (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment With a home page and Facebook account, it is NOT clearly a hoax article. Sure, the sources are dodgy (the homepage "about" link directs to this article, for instance), but if this station has a registered website, it's not a hoax.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 14:59, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Well, to be fair, its website is on Weebly rather than its own domain (something which most, though perhaps admittedly not all, radio stations with websites would have) — and it's not unheard of for people to create websites for things (even radio stations sometimes) that exist only in their own imaginations. Not that those things prove that it's a hoax, necessarily — but the existence of a website doesn't inherently prove that it's not, either. Bearcat ( talk) 20:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
As far as I'm concerned, this is an extremely badly-written and entirely unsourced article that's dancing right on the edge of being speediable as advertising/promotion in its current form. I can't satisfactorily answer the question of whether it's a hoax or not — it could just be a pirate radio station or a webstream (but those don't get automatic presumptions of notability under WP:NMEDIA), or it could indeed be a hoax page (it's not unheard of for people to create webpages for fantasy organizations that don't really exist, which is why we insist on reliable source coverage rather than taking the existence of a webpage as prima facie evidence of notability), or it could be just a badly written advert for a real radio station.
I don't have the depth of knowledge about Philippine media that would be necessary to really answer that — for instance, I wouldn't know where to even begin searching for any actual evidence of its existence or lack thereof, such as whether it has a broadcasting license or not. But that said, my suspicions are certainly raised by (a) the fact that its brand name is just the brand names of four other stations in the same market hinged together (real radio stations do not do this unless their management team failed Marketing 101); and (b) the fact that according to the Metro Manila radio market template, there's another station, DWBM-FM, first-adjacent to the frequency that this station claims to be on (and another one first-adjacent to the frequency that this one claims to have started out on, too). But that's virtually impossible, because nobody would be able to actually listen to either station's signal due to all the cross-channel leakage.
But the fact that I can't definitively prove that it's a hoax doesn't really matter, since it's a bad and unsourced article that can't be kept in this form regardless of whether it's real or a hoax. So no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can cite proper sourcing to prove that it really exists as a real, properly licensed radio station — but in this form it's an absolute delete. Bearcat ( talk) 17:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Bearcat said pretty much what I had to, but the fact that the 'station' depends on a Weebly to host their website and the MS-Paint/Paint.net quality station logos, the 13 Facebook 'likes' and the station's Twitter linking to an 'owner' who doesn't seem to be out of junior high make me think this 'station' has no broadcast tower and is another radiofan pipe dream who is solely webstreaming. Nate • ( chatter) 02:34, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. This is an obvious hoax. Also, I did a quick research about the author of this article. It seems that a 15 year old kid did this and all of the uploaded pictures here are also in his social media accounts. - WayKurat ( talk) 13:05, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Take off the air - Hoax. Nuff said. Also, I can recall once tuning in to near the claimed frequency (possibly while looking for radio stations to listen to), and around 104.9 it's just static. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 02:32, 3 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Just to add in my vote, the admin that will close this discussion might consider deleting all the images uploaded by this user as well. If those photos still remain here, he might just recreate the article and use them again. Here is the list of photos:
File:Mnyeenewlogo.gif ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Klyderaetrell ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log)
File:Mnyeeofficial.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Klyderaetrell ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log)
File:MHYEEmanila.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Klyderaetrell ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log)
File:MHYEEofficial.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Klyderaetrell ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log) - WayKurat ( talk) 02:50, 3 August 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Andrew Michaels

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

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

Well, that was quick. Apparently the article was deleted while I was typing the nomination! How nice! WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 12:11, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Altogen Biosystems

AfDs for this article:
Altogen Biosystems (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Despite the previous prod having been removed, there was zero support for keeping this at the last AFD. Despite there being zero support for keeping this, the AFD was closed as "no consensus". So we're back, and the subject is no closer to meeting either WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH than it was before. The available "sources" are a combination of press releases and primary material. Pinging duffbeerforme - the only other person who contributed to the last discussion (the nominator). St★lwart 111 10:09, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as it should have been the first time around. Fails WP:GNG. -- Kinu  t/ c 20:05, 7 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The sources are good, as shown above, and the 44 results in Scholar for Altogen itself, and probably other stuff as well, which I would search for if I was not filled with renewed disgust for the commonplace laziness of deletors. Nom and deletion arguments fail BEFORE. Anarchangel ( talk) 23:27, 8 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • A majority of those Scholar hits state nothing more than "we used their product" by naming the company as a parenthetical without providing any information. -- Kinu  t/ c 04:31, 9 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • And WP:BEFORE was covered twice - I contributed to the last deletion discussion and searched for sources then. In fact I explicitly said as much. You're free to file misguided, woefully uninformed and bad-faith personal attacks elsewhere. Oh wait, no you're not. St★lwart 111 06:22, 9 August 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Jordan Road, Hong Kong

Jordan Road, Hong Kong (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Having something named after you isn't the definition of notability used in Wikipedia. The source in the Chinese wiki only show that the road exists. One is simply a traffic ordinance listing Jordan Road among many others that mini-buses cannot drive on. While that is sufficient to verify the claim on the article it is not sufficient to establish notability. Rincewind42 ( talk) 16:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I can't speak to the other street nominations at this time, but Jordan Road is the subject of at least some significant coverage. See, e.g., Streets: Exploring Kowloon 24.151.10.165 ( talk) 18:55, 1 August 2014 (UTC) I added a brief history section to the article based on this ref. 24.151.10.165 ( talk) 19:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Major street in one of the centers of Hong Kong. If it's notable enough for there to be a station, Jordan Station, and a pier, Jordan Road Ferry Pier, it's notable enough for WP. Significant coverage easily found too [17] (also found by the anon). -- Oakshade ( talk) 01:32, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Your using "named after" to mean "a dedication made to an important place of person." In that sense, Jordan Road doesn't really have a station and a pier named after it. The station is located on Jordan Road and the Pier was too until reclamation work moved it. Jordon Road is simply the address of these places and nothing more. Rincewind42 ( talk) 03:04, 10 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. A major street in a major city, and, as noted by 24.151.10.165, substantive coverage exists. -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 05:10, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note that Wikipedia is not a directory and Wikipedia is not travelguide. Being a major street in a major city is not the criteria for inclusion under notability. The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability. Also bear in mind WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. It is not suffient to say srouces exit within this debate. You must point to the source as not all sources are reliable or sufficient. Rincewind42 ( talk) 16:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply
While multiple sources are "generally expected," WP:GNG does not and has never required more than one. It all depends, as GNG states, on the quality and depth of coverage. The source found above is very in-depth that goes on multiple book pages and actually gives more than the usual "multiple" coverages on other subjects combined. -- Oakshade ( talk) 16:06, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Two (very small) pages in fact while most of the first one is taken up by a map. And it's a travel guide to exploring Kowloon rather than an academic/historical source. Not enough weight there IMHO to carry it across the GNG threshold.  Philg88 ♦ talk 19:16, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply
I count six pages (not small), pages 60 through 65. It's basically an entire chapter devoted to Jourdan Road. -- Oakshade ( talk) 19:41, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Sure, the entire chapter is entitled "Jordan Road", but aside from the minimal coverage mentioned above, the remainder is vignettes about Yau ma Tei Typhoon Shelter, Yue Hwa Department Store, Kowloon Union Church and Manse and the Diocesan Girls School. Coverage of entities in Jordan Road doesn't make the road notable based on the above mentioned principle of notability not being inherited.  Philg88 ♦ talk 21:22, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply
All encapsulated on Jordan Road. Besides, we're only talking about English language sources in a Chinese language dominated region. If this coverage exists already in English, most certainly more exists in Chinese. -- Oakshade ( talk) 22:47, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Really? I can't find anything through a google book search.-- 180.172.239.231 ( talk) 23:53, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply
@ Oakshade: More sources do not exist in Chinese because that's something I always check WRT China/Hong Kong articles. There are passing mentions of bus routes and buildings in the street but nothing more substantive.  Philg88 ♦ talk 07:08, 3 August 2014 (UTC) reply
I frequently find sources in English that others miss, but not being a Chinese reader, I can't confirm that say any of these might be appropriate sources. While I trust you've made some effort to look, I just don't see this as the "proof" end-all on sources existing in Chinese or not.-- Oakshade ( talk) 19:58, 3 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Even if the street was named after this doctor (which it wasn't, that honour goes to John Newell Jordan), the NYT article says nothing about Jordan Road. As far as the Chinese coverage is concerned, the references cited above are a street guide and a pocket encyclopedia of Hong Kong culture, not academic texts. The same goes for the references in the Cantonese article - they are street guides to Hong Kong. These are sufficient for verifiabilty purposes but not not provide sufficient weight to satisfy the general notability guideline.  Philg88 ♦ talk 07:08, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply
The disparity in description is exactly why I was asking others ("comment") to evaluate these potential sources. I'm the one who added the reference to John Newell Jordan and the Hong Kong University reference supporting this addition. 24.151.10.165 ( talk) 15:34, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply
WP:GNG does not require only "academic texts" as evidence of notability and travel guides are not excluded either. As long as the combined coverage is significant, it can come from travel guides, academic texts or anything else that's secondary to the topic and subject to editorial oversight.-- Oakshade ( talk) 17:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to List of streets and roads in Hong Kong. Not notable enough.-- 180.172.239.231 ( talk) 13:30, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep or, if the historical references I've added to the article and noted above are not deemed significant coverage, merge to Jordan, Hong Kong. The neighborhood article will provide more context and will benefit from the historical material. See WP:MERGE "Context: If a short article requires the background material or context from a broader article in order for readers to understand it." and WP:GEOLAND "Examples may include subdivisions, business parks, housing developments, informal regions of a state, unofficial neighborhoods, etc. – any of which could be considered notable on a case-by-case basis, given non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources." 24.151.10.165 ( talk) 15:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Sorry, but WP:GEOLAND doesn't apply to roads. The idea behind the suggested redirect outcome is that all the verifiable and sourced information on Jordan Road (of which there isn't much) can go in the appropriate entry in List of streets and roads in Hong Kong with a "See also" mention in Jordan, Hong Kong. Any ancillary or "tourism" type info belongs in Wikitravel or Wikivoyage, not here.  Philg88 ♦ talk 05:40, 6 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Just to be clear, the policy cites above are to support merging to the neighborhood article. 24.151.10.165 ( talk) 14:54, 6 August 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Michael David Ewart,

Michael David Ewart, (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:10, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:10, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, no refs, unclear claim to notability. Hairhorn ( talk) 13:53, 3 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, Autobiographical nonsense. MiracleMat ( talk) 09:39, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Utkal Gaurab

Utkal Gaurab (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent| lambast 04:35, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
@ ArcAngel: I just wanted to highlight it and even the claimed award is not cited. CutestPenguin { talk • contribs} 16:40, 3 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete This article is an obvious hoax and multiple speedy criteria applies. @ ArcAngel and Cutest Penguin: have you both noticed something?? The award image is an obvious hoax. There is no Dada Saheb Palekar award actually exist. But Dada Saheb Phalke exists. See the image carefully it is written "Dada Saheb Phalke". And now see the article it is written "Dada Saheb Palekar". Read this and you will find that the award is only given to those who work in Bollywood cinema. There is also a list of people who received this award. I can't see the subjects name in that list. It is claimed that he got the award in 2014 which is not possible since Gulzar has got it. (see my next comment) There are many similar issues with this article. I guess, the award certificate is madeup of a computer software maybe by Adobe photoshop or similar. No reliable third party source found in World Wide Web to verify the claims which are obviously hoax. I'm going to add those speedy tags again. It seems to me that the creator has COI issues as well. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 14:17, 9 August 2014 (UTC)] reply
@ Jim Carter - Public: Even I have same views on this and Yes! I did noticed and even I mentioned above about award. CutestPenguin ( Talk) 14:23, 9 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Ah.. another look told me that the award is not even given out this year i.e. the award is not given out in 2014. Then how did the subject got it?? The last recipent was Gulzar in 2013. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 14:29, 9 August 2014 (UTC) reply
@ Jim Carter - Public: Do you want the same award? Well, I am very good at Photoshop . CutestPenguin ( Talk) 14:35, 9 August 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No prejudice against recreation as a redirect to Vatican Cricket Team. Jenks24 ( talk) 14:16, 9 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Aamir Bhatti

Aamir Bhatti (  | 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 run-of-the-mill priest whose sole distinction appears to be that he plays on the Vatican cricket team, a symbolic organization that has no more standing in professional cricket leagues than does any company cricket team. bd2412 T 03:02, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete This article also has major coat-racking issues. If people want an article on the Vatican Cricket Team, create that article. In addition, he seems not to even be a priest yet, not that it really has much bearing on his notability. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:47, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- Non-notable cricket player for a start-up semi-pro amateur team, which team itself is arguably non-notable per WP:ORG. Of the sources listed in the footnotes, all but two appear to be Vatican-related thus disqualifying them as independent (the mentions of the subject were WP:ROUTINE to trivial in any event). Of the three remaining independent sources (BBC, The Hindu and Dawn), only one has substantial coverage of the subject, therefore subject fails GNG for lack of in-depth coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 16:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Do not delete - WikiProject Biography has rated this article as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. Tissueboy ( talk) 03:04, 3 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Huh? And what does a WikiProject's evaluation of an article have to do with the notability of the subject? Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 03:13, 3 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Only the Dawn article comes remotely close to covering the subject in detail in a reliable source. Neither alone, nor in combination with the mentions in other sources, is that sufficient for GNG purposes. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 11:43, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- I dount that the cricket team is even semi-pro: it looks amateur to me. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:07, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - completely fails WP:CRIN and WP:ATH requirements. His notability as a priest is also virtually non-existent. Just to correct a comment above, this team isn't even remotely semi-professional! Most national cricket teams outside of the ten full members of the ICC, with exception to a few of its associate members, are for the most part amateur teams. Oh and Tissueboy's reason to keep is the most bizarre argument I've heard in four years on here! Howzat?Out!Out!Out! ( talk) 16:45, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I've now created Vatican Cricket Team and would once again highlight that redirects are cheap. I don't think there's enough for the subject to individually pass WP:GNG but he was asked to meet with the Governor as an international representative of the team; I think his name is a plausible search term and we now have a redirect target. St★lwart 111 23:03, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - the Vatican's cricket team most certainly fails WP:CRIN requirements for teams - it's not played representative cricket and isn't even recognised by the International Cricket Council! Howzat?Out!Out!Out! ( talk) 16:27, 6 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Absolutely. Luckily, though, it passes WP:GNG in spades with significant coverage in major international papers from at least 4 different countries. So the fact that it fails WP:CRIN after that is moot. St★lwart 111 18:08, 6 August 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Imvbox

Imvbox (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:GNG Kansiime ( talk) 05:06, 24 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: the sourcing in the article appears to meet WP:GNG. What needs be determined is whether this online distribution platform meets WP:WEB or not. Schmidt, Michael Q. 01:37, 25 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I am the article's creator. The first, third and fourth sources cited in the article discuss the topic (IMVBox) extensively. They detail IMVBox's aims as a company and mention the company's collection of films. Mairey3005 ( talk) 08:43, 25 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I am the article's creator. On the matter of WP:WEB: I have been monitoring IMVBox for some time now and to my mind IMVBox has gained a great deal of recognition over recent months. It seems that many newspapers and news agencies in Iran have picked up on IMVBox’s work and started to cover the company; ISNA, a major news agency in Iran, ran a piece on IMVBox's work and interviewed the director. What comes through in many of the articles is the understanding that IMVBox is fighting a longstanding problem in Iran: online piracy. There is a view, I think, that IMVBox is revolutionising Iranian cinema. It is after all the first time Iranian films have been gathered together on one website. Before IMVBox’s creation Iranian films were available on many websites for illegal download. Iranian filmmakers are beginning to recognise what IMVBox stands for and how it will help them in their work. The press release from 200 Iranian actors and filmmakers received a lot of attention in Iran, and IMVBox was at the centre of the campaign. Mairey3005 ( talk) 10:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I am a subscriber to the IMVBox website and have been for some time. I came across this Wikipedia page when accessing the website online and saw it was up for deletion. I would like to add that IMVBox is a extremely unique service, projecting Iranian cinema onto an accessible, digital platform and therefore indeed revolutionising the genre. It has enabled me to access both important and influential Iranian films that I would otherwise never have had the opportunity of watching. I believe it deserves recognition for continuously supporting a genre, that perhaps somewhat can become overlooked in Western society. The service provided by IMVBox also prevents and fights online piracy, therefore supporting a positive movement for cinema viewed via the Internet. I believe IMVBox deserves recognition and firmly believe it is in coherence with the WP:WEB guidelines. Ljayne92 ( talk) 11:48, 26 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Davey2010 • (talk) 02:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep It has some online sources and it seems like it is a good source for Iranian movies. Frmorrison ( talk) 21:19, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I am the article's creator. I have just added an article published on BBC Persian that describes the work of IMVBox. BBC Persian surely must qualify as a credible source. Mairey3005 ( talk) 15:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Hilton Garden Inn Frankfurt Airport

Hilton Garden Inn Frankfurt Airport (  | 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 subject does not appear to meet criteria for inclusion ( WP:NOTABLE), and in fact appears to be an advert from a connected editor. Benboy00 ( talk) 19:50, 14 July 2014 (UTC) reply

  • Comment I especially like the ™ and ® symbols, which aren't even present in the source, ruling out a simple copy/paste oversight. Benboy00 ( talk) 19:54, 14 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:46, 14 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:46, 14 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:46, 14 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar  ♔ 15:30, 24 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Davey2010 • (talk) 02:04, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • delete Just a hotel of no especial significance. Mangoe ( talk) 12:37, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. ( WP:NPASR). ( Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica 1000 04:18, 8 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Alashash

Alashash (  | 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 found no coverage for this. Fails WP:NF. SL93 ( talk) 00:36, 17 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SL93 ( talk) 00:51, 17 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. SL93 ( talk) 00:51, 17 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Original Arabic:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Proper title:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Writer:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Director:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Producer:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Actor:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Actress:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Production:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Comment: In correcting article title for this Arabic film that never had an English-language release, it does appear that it may have had some Arabic language coverage under "الههانننه". Per WP:CSB non-English sources are fine in the lack of English language equivalents. I will await input from Wikipedians better able to find and translate. Schmidt, Michael Q. 09:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The film's Arabic name is "القشاش". The word "الههانننه" has no meaning in Arabic. (Yes, I am a native speaker.) I have corrected the name here and in the article. -- Meno25 ( talk) 10:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar  ♔ 15:30, 24 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Davey2010 • (talk) 02:02, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

DivXLand Media Subtitler

DivXLand Media Subtitler (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: no significant coverage in independent secondary reliable sources. All I found were these two sources, which don't discuss the software in more or less significant depth, and both have problems of their own: Softpedia is not independent (hosts indiscriminate collection of download and describe it randomly; no assertion of notability to reuse per WP:GNG) and LifeHacker is a collective blog, albeit with some editorial control. Anyway, even if sources were 100% reliable and independent, the "significant coverage" criterion of WP:GNG is not addressed. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff ( talk• track) 15:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Davey2010 • (talk) 01:59, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete - The article reads like an advertisement. As is, it seems to provide no value to a Wikipedia user. The software has some coverage, but questionable whether it is sufficient to confer notability. Substantial coverage would likely include critical analysis rather than fluffy marketing.-- Rpclod ( talk) 18:41, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Does not show significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. The article has received two "reviews" but they don't qualify as significant. Fleet Command ( talk) 07:41, 7 August 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Lost in the riots

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:03, 25 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:03, 25 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I can't find any substantial coverage from independent reliable sources, just primary sources, blogs, trivial gig mentions, etc. 4-year-old working band, so may achieve notability in future. -- Hobbes Goodyear ( talk) 12:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Davey2010 • (talk) 01:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - local band; no evidence of touring or large concerts. Bearian ( talk) 20:14, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Ludic fallacy

Ludic fallacy (  | 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 term has no independent notability outside of Nicholas Nassim Taleb's work. External references containing this term all refer directly to Taleb and focus on his work in general. I propose merging this article into The Black Swan (2007 book). Previous discussion on the talk page. 0x0077BE [ talk/ contrib] 22:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC) 0x0077BE [ talk/ contrib] 22:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC) reply

It is not true that it has no independent notability. I hear it used frequently in risk management; I did a search on Google Scholar and it has plenty of citations as a fallacy. Limit-theorem ( talk)
Care to share? I've looked around pretty extensively and have never found it referenced independent of Taleb's other ideas, indicating that it has no independent notability. 0x0077BE [ talk/ contrib] 20:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Comment. You are not actually proposing deletion, unless you feel there should not even be a redirect at ludic fallacy. Please withdraw the proposal, and propose (or just WP:BOLDly do) the merge. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Hm. If that's procedure I suppose. Admin or non-admin can feel free to close this unless someone else feels that there shouldn't be a redirect. I'll just merge the article myself with redirection to Taleb's page at some point. 0x0077BE [ talk/ contrib] 20:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:38, 25 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:38, 25 July 2014 (UTC) reply

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

Probably should be unsigned, but obviously that doesn't really support notability. It was a mistake to have included it in that list anyway, since it's not really a cognitive bias. 0x0077BE [ talk/ contrib] 20:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Davey2010 • (talk) 01:56, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I am unhappy with the idea that for a concept to be notable it should be used in ways that do not mention its creator. In this case the suggestion seems not to apply anyway [19] and this search suggests more examples though I am blocked from accessing most of them. I am also disappointed about the discussion here which seems to be deprecating having an article because the term "ludic fallacy" may only be used in the popular press. If this were true (and it is not [20]) it might be a reason to make extra efforts to have a responsible article so that intelligent, interested readers can look up a description of the concept and so be better able to assess whatever journalese they are reading and whether the concept itself has any validity. If the present article is "extremely wanting" [21] I would recommend improving it. Whether it should be merged with The Black Swan (2007 book) is of lesser importance. I think, editorially, it would unbalance that article but that is a matter not for AFD but for talk page discussion. Thincat ( talk) 10:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • keep The article needs a lot of help but there's no question about notability: there are plenty of GBook and GScholar references. Merging it back into the book is a mistake; it's indeed possible that any merger should run the other way. Mangoe ( talk) 13:47, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • keep I hear it used frequently in risk management; I did a search on Google Scholar and it has plenty of citations as a fallacy. Limit-theorem ( talk) 00:39, 8 August 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Of course professors are not automatically notable, in that case we could do away with WP:PROF... Notability could not be established. Randykitty ( talk) 15:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Olawoye Theo Ladapo

Olawoye Theo Ladapo (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

After reading the article and using the references provided as a guide, I am not convinced that it meets WP:ACADEMIC. Darreg ( talk) 01:40, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Darreg ( talk) 01:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Darreg ( talk) 01:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Darreg ( talk) 01:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • I do not know this Professor, but I have worked in a Nigerian university, although a long time ago, and I do understand the system somewhat. I think we need to be cautious on this one. The article needs work as do related articles. For example I just added the university where he is a Professor and then discovered that it it is not listed in the disambiguation page Federal University of Technology, so I did that too. Within Nigeria he might well be one of the top professors. He probably spends more time on important national committees that does an average US professor and he will certainly not have the massive research group that leads to a massive number of publications, but he could be notable. The article needs more work, before we can really tell. If he was a US or European professor that work would be done quickly. With a Nigerian it will take time. I am a weak keep for now. -- Bduke (Discussion) 21:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Strong keep : Article passed the professor test. Professors are generally notable based on existing WP:Consensus Wikicology ( talk) 12:41, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Why would you say such a thing? You know from recent AfD experience that professors are not generally notable. They are notable if they pass one or more criteria in WP:PROF. -- 101.117.110.137 ( talk) 10:06, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply
I searched for Professors in WP:Consensus. but I found nothing. Can you kindly provide a link that states that an academic professor is automatically notable? If you can do that I will gladly change my vote to KEEP as soon as I can find a reliable source in the article that shows that he is indeed a professor. Darreg ( talk) 12:52, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply

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

Comment: :@ Darreg: why not direct this question to RHaworth ( talk · contribs) when he quoted that “ Professors are deemed automatically notable ”? @ Afd/Charles Ayo! Nevertheless criteria 5 of WP:ACADEMIC answered your question. Which clearly stipulated that a subject meet WP:ACADEMIC if “ The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon). Am not soo convinced that you read WP:ACADEMIC before your comment above because if you did, you would have came accross criteria 5 that answered your question. Please kindly go through WP:ACADEMIC for verification and clearification.

@ Jamie Tubers: I expected an experienced editor like you to state how the professor failed WP:ACADEMIC. Rather than just saying “ he failed WP:ACADEMIC ” like you did here. When did he published his first journal? How many citations has he gathered? And state its h-index. To validate your statement above. Wikicology ( talk) 23:01, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply

  • The citations given doesn't prove anything. before we even talk about the reliability of the sources, the sources are links to publications of the subject. That alone is "self published" flag. Even if those sources can be used (in which they can't be), they didn't focus on the Subject....they can't establish the notability of the subject. Google didn't bring out anything significant, just the scientific file sharing sites that you used as references. The plain fact is, the subject of this article isn't notable. Don't burden yourself trying to keep it, cos it'd still get deleted anyway. This article fails WP:GNG, the most basic criteria. So, no point in even moving to check for WP:Academic.-- Jamie Tubers ( talk) 23:24, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Fails WP:PROF, with an h-index of just 3. I have removed the claim that the subject was a Fellow of the British Institute of Biomedical Sciences, which was not confirmed by the ibms.org website. His role as Department Head is not enough for WP:PROF#C6, nor is his role on local journals enough for WP:PROF#C8. Given the subject's long career, it remains possible that local Nigerian news coverage brings subject over the line for WP:GNG or WP:PROF#C7, although I can't find such coverage with Google. For searching purposes, be aware that "Olawoye" is the surname (an apparent error by the article creator). -- 101.117.110.137 ( talk) 10:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: per above delete votes. Darreg ( talk) 11:32, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Jane Pullman Standish

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:03, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The coverage of her wedding is one lines in articles on larger topics and tweets. Nothing here rises to the level of notability. This seems largely designed to make T.R. Threston seem more important. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Probably qualifies under WP:CSD#G5 as having been created by a member of this sock farm. The sources listed are likely all hoaxes: quickly created websites publishes solely for the purpose of adding credibility to this and the other articles created by the sock farm. The "Harris Charitable Trust" doesn't appear to exist on anyone's radar, but it has honored all of the subjects of this sock farm. Similarly, the Social Network of New York seems to exist only through its own postings in various online forums. No serious coverage exist of the network. Similarly for The Pullman Trust: no sources can be found other than social network postings to verify the existence of this organization. Pullman is surely a socialite, and managed to get her name mentioned in an article about flash weddings, but that seems to be the only legitimate coverage available. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 12:20, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Other then being mentioned once by an ABCNews report who was quoting a tweet, all these sources are to social media or user-submitted content. I see no evidence that she, her father, or the Pullman trust actually exist. Choess ( talk) 12:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above & Mainly WikiDan61 - All created by a sock who prefers promoting non notable people. – Davey2010 • (talk) 13:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: I fail to see the relevance with respect to an encyclopedia here, intel on who went to her wedding reads like taken from yellow-press and does not belong, I also highly suspect it being a product of that sockpuppet-zoo around "AustralianThreston", since the article was initiated by one of it's suspected underlings. LagondaDK ( talk) 13:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WikiDan61. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 17:15, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete all: After the recent update of LagondaDK on his Talk page I suggest ALL of the "articles" listed on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AustralianThreston as part of the sockpuppet network should be speedy-deleted. I think, this is proof enough, that there is not a single one, which is NOT a hoax or at least provide fake information.-- Susumu ( talk) 22:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Sofia Rodrigues Braganza

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete None of the sources rise to the level of notability. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:26, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - WP:DIDEROT Jim-Siduri ( talk) 04:55, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete All of the sources are deeply suspicious. Like other material in the sockpuppet investigation, the New York Travel Writers Society Annual Report was uploaded to Google Books by self-publishing through CreateSpace. The tributes and its listing as a private stock on Bloomberg are all generated from unchecked data submitted online. In short, the article's subject and her company are social media hoaxes. Choess ( talk) 12:17, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete under WP:CSD#G5 for having been created by a member of this sock farm. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 12:35, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above & Mainly WikiDan61 - All created by a sock who prefers promoting non notable people. – Davey2010 • (talk) 13:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: I fail to see the relevance here ... I am also very alarmed as to the given references, their nature, how they got online, questionable ISBN, sockfarm-involvement. LagondaDK ( talk) 14:05, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Sockfarm qualifies for G5. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 14:29, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete all: After the recent update of LagondaDK on his Talk page I suggest ALL of the "articles" listed on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AustralianThreston as part of the sockpuppet network should be speedy-deleted. I think, this is proof enough, that there is not a single one, which is NOT a hoax or at least provide fake information.-- Susumu ( talk) 22:10, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: another product of Australian Threston's sock-farm, intel on Braganza originate from online-profiles like facebook and WordPress and the likes, her company "Braganza Publishing" - said to have been in business for 30 years - is nowhere to be found, only hints in public space, mentioning in "T.R. Threston" related articles that themselves were published in public space. The one web-site that was presented as the company's site ain't convincing at all, does not appear to be professional, established in public space on free to use server and with no list of publication or names of authors whatsoever. A really poor presentation for what is said to be a 100 employees company. Nowadays thats considerably large for a publishing company. After 30 years of publishing one should at least expect some of their books having ended up with either a bookseller or a library. Apart from that: Braganza Publishing would not qualify for an article under the Wikipedia rules, and Sofia Braganza won't either. Most open space sites you find will be self-referential, being linked to T.R. Threston -> John P. Fitzpatrick -> Sofia Braganza -> Braganza Publishing -> World Guide Publishing (T.R. Threston) and back! LagondaDK ( talk) 14:03, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

John P. Fitzpatrick

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:00, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:00, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:00, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Minor photographer who was published, that does not make someone notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nomination. EricSerge ( talk) 03:28, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Fails WP:BASIC. The disturbing "obituary" reference mentions "Fitzpatrick had become extremely vocal towards his hatred towards his former friend and co-worker, award winning travel writer T.R. Threston,..." leading me to conclude that the article was not created with the intent of improving the encyclopedia.- Mr X 12:15, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete under WP:CSD#G5 for having been created by a member of this sock farm, noted for elaborate hoaxes involving hastily created external websites, and user-generated content of other sites.
  • Delete per above & Mainly WikiDan61 - All created by a sock who prefers on promoting non notable people. – Davey2010 • (talk) 13:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: And once more: sockfarm-involvement (references, aso) cause suspicion. Apart from that: how is this relevant for an encyclopedia? LagondaDK ( talk) 14:08, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete can't find reliable third party sources. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 14:23, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete all: After the recent update of LagondaDK on his Talk page I suggest ALL of the "articles" listed on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AustralianThreston as part of the sockpuppet network should be speedy-deleted. I think, this is proof enough, that there is not a single one, which is NOT a hoax or at least provide fake information.-- Susumu ( talk) 22:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: not relevant for the encyclopedia. Apart from that: the background-check uncovered a dodgy story of him being threatening to rape and kill both "T.R. Threston" and "Sofia Braganza", both who had Wiki-articles, created by AustralianThreston's (blocked) sock-farm (1st deleted, 2nd AfD running) Fitzpatric hunted by CIA and FBI died in Croatia ... it reads like a dime-novel of the worst kind. Info online are either from facebook or twitter-accounts or released on free-to-use web-sites that ain't proper source. At some point Fitzpatrick claims to have worked for the "National Geographic Magazine", but there is no mentioning of him there. Footnote 6 hints to him working for a motorsport magazine, but if you check for his name there you will only find a photo of one "John Fitzpatrick" having a race in an old Ford against a Mini Cooper, no photo "by" him. Photoshopped profile-photoes like here that is a badly photoshopped version of this don't help. There is one photographer named "John Fitzpatrick" (no "P." there), but hes a wedding-photographer. As for the collaboration mentioned in Footnote 4 ("Where The REALLY Big Waves Live"), the only sources its being mentioned are sites somehow related to Fitzpatrick (and not the author!). As for the award winning: one should expect to find something on that, but you don't!
The only list of prizes or nominations are to be found are on his own AuthorsDen profile, claiming to have been nominated for Pulitzer in 2001, but apart from that: no neutral sources! An article resp. press-release claiming him to have been awarded numerous prizes has actually been published under the author's name "John P. Fitzpatrick" on one of them free-to-publish sites, where anyone is allowed to publish anything. The only award winning "John P. Fitzpatrick" I found was actually another "John P. Fitzpatrick" who too originates from New Jersey and won prices for his short-films. But he is far younger and in cinematography and not photoes ...
To sum it all up: the story is strange, product of AustralianThreston's sock-farm, connected to other articles that had been deleted (irrelevance, + sock-farm), given references do not proof the claims, alternative sources originate from "John P. Fitzpatrick" accounts, there is the danger that biographical data of other "John (P.) Fitzpatrick"s are mashed up in this, taking all that into account: data not convincing, person not relevant for encyclopedia. Consequence: deletion. LagondaDK ( talk) 10:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Transfer of Burden

Transfer of Burden (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:41, 24 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker talk 00:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or merge into " Transaction cost". The article largely references transaction cost. The subject does appear to be a commonly used term (unlike transaction cost).-- Rpclod ( talk) 18:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. This is an extended dictionary definition but Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Also this seems to be a neologism that hasn't been accepted by the construction economics community. Fiachra10003 ( talk) 18:26, 9 August 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Top o' the morning toastmasters

Top o' the morning toastmasters (  | 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 club of a notable organisation. There are 1000's of similar clubs, not everyone deserves an article. Reads like WP:Promotion Gbawden ( talk) 07:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:38, 24 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:38, 24 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker talk 00:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Just another toastmasters club.-- Rpclod ( talk) 18:53, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:MILL (this is a run of the mill club), WP:CORP (this is not an especially notable non-profit corporation), and WP:NOTINHERITED (many small organizations inevitably have had one or two famous members). Bearian ( talk) 20:11, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Vivek Kumar Pandey

AfDs for this article:
Vivek Kumar Pandey (  | 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 third (at least) in a series of articles created about an academic of no clear notability.

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Hoary ( talk) 00:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Hoary ( talk) 00:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hoary ( talk) 00:35, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and Salt. Scholarly achievements totally inadequate for WP:Prof [22]. Xxanthippe ( talk) 00:50, 1 August 2014 (UTC). reply
  • Delete and salt. Notability still not evident. — David Eppstein ( talk) 02:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. This should be the 3rd nomination. Xxanthippe ( talk) 02:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC). reply
    • Response. Perhaps wrongheadedly, I supposed that the title would convey "2nd nomination of an article titled 'Vivek Kumar Pandey'". Titling it "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vivek Kumar Pandey (3rd nomination)" would I think have brought other complications. ¶ Incidentally, additionally salting "Dr. Vivek Kumar Pandey" (with and without the dot) could be a good idea. -- Hoary ( talk) 10:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
I am sure you are right. Xxanthippe ( talk) 11:19, 1 August 2014 (UTC). reply
If this ends with "delete", perhaps also delete User:Vivek Kumar Pandey, which is the draft for an article. -- Hoary ( talk) 12:42, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

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

  • Keep. As a Cadet and Scientist he is position holder: He visited ICTP, Italy in August, 2004 as visiting scientist to join the course on climate dynamics and he is also position holder in 96 Uttar Pradesh Battalion (UP BN), Jaunpur and thus the Varanasi group of Indian NCC (Army Wing) in 2007. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.156.187 ( talk) 13:49, 3 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Strike possibly WP:SOC and WP:COI. CutestPenguin { talk • contribs} 16:45, 3 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Reverting strikeout. The suspicion that a commenter here might be a sockpuppet (of whom?) or have a conflict of interest is not a good reason to strike out the comment. (Indeed, certainty that a commenter has a conflict of interest wouldn't be good reason, and certain sockpuppetry might not be either.) -- Hoary ( talk) 22:40, 3 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Struck out second "keep". You only get to say "keep" (or "delete") once. -- Hoary ( talk) 22:44, 3 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per nomination. CutestPenguin { talk • contribs} 16:47, 3 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. It seems that the person using Nokia is forced to insert line breaks; it's these that screw up the AfD template, as well as much else besides. Attempting to use my own (non-Nokia) dumbphone for editing an article would have the same disastrous result. (I'd never consider using it for such a purpose.) -- Hoary ( talk) 00:50, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Article of notable person have multidimensional approach for benefit of humanity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.151.0 ( talk) 06:00, 4 August 2014 (UTC) — 117.199.151.0 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
  • Keep. If above five facts given in Hindi is of Dr. Vivek Kumar Pandey and also the text in the article too make him National and International importance. Thus article of such notable person needed to preserve and keep on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.146.109 ( talk) 06:43, 4 August 2014 (UTC) — 117.199.146.109 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
@ Hoary: Now above these two votes signifies a lot. Well, in my comment I mentioned 'possibly' which mean I am not sure. CutestPenguin { talk • contribs} 08:37, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Well, Cutest Penguin, if you're not sure that one "!vote" (as they're called hereabouts) is by a sockpuppet of somebody who has already made a !vote, then don't strike it through. And even if you are sure, don't strike it through. This AfD will be closed by somebody who will be competent to judge the relative probabilities for him/herself. For this reason, I have again removed your strike-through. Please don't strike through again, unless you are very sure of what you are doing. Although if you were definitely in the right, then the rightness would be evident to another editor who could dispassionately make the same strike through, so again there'd no rush for you to do it. (When would you be in the right? If you had strong reason to believe that a comment was posted by the sockpuppet of a blocked or banned user, or if a comment were grossly offensive -- and I haven't seen any allegation of either.) -- Hoary ( talk) 09:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I gone through his blog "Vivekanand and Modern Tradition", I found it very creative idea such as humanity originated from Prayag( Allahabad) from Saptarshi and Allahabad is the place where three major religions ( Hindu, Islam and Christianity are present with their potential; and Islam work parallel to Shri Ramaism and Christianity works parallel to Shri Krishnaism is his most important at least for Indian point of view as well as for world's point of view and his this outcome of the thoughts which he discussed in his blog very clearly makes him notable. Also as an academician and scientist he has good presentation. I therefore want his article on it in the same form because obviously he is notable. let us have a visit on his blog "Vivekanand and Modern Tradition" [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.214.132.235 ( talk) 11:39, 4 August 2014 (UTC) \ — 117.214.132.235 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
  1. ^ "Vivekanand and Modern Tradition". Pandey's famous blog
  • Comment. As urged by 117.214.132.235 ( contributions) elsewhere on this page, I visited "Pandey's famous blog". It's a mixture of English and Hindi. Unfortunately I cannot read the latter, but the former contains much Deep Thought, most (all?) of which is too Deep for me as well as inexplicably duplicated. This is a shortish example: in common with every entry I have glanced at, this hasn't attracted a single response -- which, for a "famous blog", is surprising. (Compare the degree of audience participation at, say, " Bike Snob NYC", whose more or less anonymous author is written up as a blogger in the NYT.) However, my mere impressions are of little importance, if any. If Pandey's blog is indeed of unusual significance, then where are the independent, published sources that say this? -- Hoary ( talk) 22:33, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The Islam who work parallel to Shri Ramaism is elder brother of Christianity who works parallel to Shri Krishnaism as Shri Ram is Elder than Shri Krishna in all means. This statement given by Dr. Pandey in his blog is very important for the world society. As a pesonal I see him on his facebook and found this blog view in one week at a particular date as a famous blog evidence is as follows(described by Dr. Pandey on 23 July on his faceebook account): My blog "Vivekanand and Modern Tradition" has more than 24500 page views from all over the world since August, 2013 to till date. Entry Pageviews in one week: United States/172, India/117, Germany/25, Australia/49, United Arab Emirates/ 2, Bahrain/1, France/1, Malaysia/1, Netherlands/1, Russia/1, Nepal/4, Bulgaria/1, Japan/1| I found him notable as a scientist, academician, social worker and philosopher and as a creative member of this world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.159.126 ( talk) 05:10, 5 August 2014 (UTC) — 117.199.159.126 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
    • "Japan/1" was probably me. ¶ The question is not "Does some anonymous person here find him notable as a scientist, academician, social worker and philosopher and as a creative member of this world?" Instead, it's "What do independent, published, reliable sources say about him?" -- Hoary ( talk) 09:26, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. We have some scientific works of Dr. Pandey which is important for mathematical modeling and reanalysis of Indonesian throughflow and Indian Ocean Dynamics as well as for the Climatic importance of the society from a newly born centre in year 2001 having less computational facility in comparison with the other International Centre and also important that his work is his standalone work rather than a big group. Dr. Pandey’s 5 recent papers on climate dynamics quoted on NCAR/UCAR Climate Data Guide and RAMA publications as publication from University of Allahabad [1] [2], his works on Indonesian throughflow and Indian Ocean Dynamics are quoted in Princeton Ocean Model publication in form of 4 publication [3]and also one of the co-authored work “Mathematical Modelling of Atmosphere and Ocean Processes around Antarctica” as a Review paper edited by NCAOR, Goa, HeadLland Sada, Vasco-da-Gama, 2007 is also quoted as search by Pandey [4]. I hope for a academician of 100% presence in the institution and having scientific attitude at place like University of Allahabad it is a good performance. We need having him on Wikipedia as a notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.244.247 ( talk) 10:45, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Is this why you removed the AfD template? But whatever the reason for that, it wasn't as interesting an edit as this one, in which you added to User:Vivek Kumar Pandey a potted description of V K Pandey's editing of English-language Wikipedia -- a description that seems to describe your editing. If you are V K Pandey, simply write in the first person; if you're not, perhaps you can explain your editing of V K Pandey's user page and the curious resemblance between you and him. -- Hoary ( talk) 12:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. As we have following discussion from his web page: Pandey honored as the Proud of University of Allahabad as Proud of Allahabad University Alumni Assocaition since 2008 [5] "Pandey is the Proud Past of AU Alumni". Pandey is the proud of Allahabad University</ref>. Encyclopedia article in English have Dr Pandey's Unique Identifier-4780316397 of OCLC WorldCat: Pandey's Biography added in the OCLC WorldCat and MARQUIS WHO'S WHO DISTINGUISHED RESEARCH SCIENTIST in 2009 [6] [7] [8] and he is also I honored as TOP 100 Scientist 2010 by International Biographical Centre (IBC), Cambridge. [9]. Keep the article 14.139.244.243 ( talk) 11:49, 5 August 2014 (UTC) — 14.139.244.243 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
  1. ^ “Dr. Pandey’s 5 recent papers on Climate Dynamics”. All the 5 papers based on reanalysis/evaluation of NCEP Global Ocean Data Assimilation System (GODAS) using Research Moored Array for African-Asian-Australian Monsoon Analysis and Prediction (RAMA) are quoted in NCAR/UCAR Climate Data Guide as comments
  2. ^ “Dr. Pandey’s 5 recent papers on Climate Dynamics”. Quoted as RAMA publications in 2010-11-13/14
  3. ^ “Pandey’s paper on Indonesian Throughflow using Princeton Ocean Model(POM) in the POM model publication list”. POM Model publication list search result of Pandey, Vivek Kumar
  4. ^ “Antarctica related mathematical modeling work”. Quoted on POM publication list
  5. ^ "Dr. Pandey is the Proud Past Alumni of Allahabad University Alumni Association". Dr. Pandey is Allahabad University Alumni Association's proud i.e. proud of University of Allahabad
  6. ^ http://www.worldcat.org/title/vivek-kumar-pandey "Dr. Pandey's Biograpy is included in encyclopedic biography"]. Dr. Pandey's biography added in OCLC WorlCat biography as the list say
  7. ^ [1]
  8. ^ "Vivek's biography in Marquis Whos Who online data". Pandey's brief biography in Marquis online data sets
  9. ^ [2]
  • Comments. I have following details about alumni award of Dr. Pandey: At present Allahabad University Alumni Association web site is [1], Past or oldest or as it is at least latest 2008 Allahabad University Alumni web site of declaration of Proud Past Alumni(Famous alumni include is [2] [3], and middle age web site of declaration of Proud Past Alumni(Famous alumni include is [4] [5], and further associated dummy web page in the supports are here: [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]. I have expectation from the members in the debates that they should not have any confusion on his honour as time to time since 2008 to 2012 this leeast was on the declaration list of Proud Past Alumni/famous Alumni of University of Allahabad Alumni Association. Also Dr. Pandey is well known for his staying in Allahabad University leaving NCAOR, Goa for the purpose of not his own but for benefit of the common man and it is well known that the K. Banerjee Centre of Atmospheric and Ocean Studies was initially funded be the NCAOR and a lay man who have a little ambition of becoming a good scientist could not leave the source i.e. the NCAOR at the time of 2001 and it was Pandey who sacrifices to fulfil the aim of high authority and highly educated persons of Allahabad at that time and even at this time too. His academics excellence should be searched in his blog which none can give here surviving in Allahabad as a common man and easily working in the University of Allahabad. How he given the good words for the social and religious matter from on which there is no comments from any caste and society. This is because every one finds him from all caste and religion belonging even from a Sanatam Brahmin family. 14.139.244.243 ( talk) 06:44, 6 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  1. ^ “UoA, Alumni”. Alumni web site
  2. ^ “Proud Past of UoA, Alumni Association/Famous Alumni”. Oldest web site of the Allahabad University Alumni Association
  3. ^ “Prous Past Alumni declaration web page capture”. Proud Past Alumni of Allahabad University Alumni Association
  4. ^ “June 2012 i.e. middle age web page of declaration of Proud Past Alumni of University of Allahabad”. Middle age web page of University of Allahabad Alumni web page
  5. ^ “Proud Past supporting web capture”. Proud Past of University of Allahabad alumni Association
  6. ^ “Proud Past of UoA, as on second web page PDF”. Allahabad University Alumni Association
  7. ^ [ https://www.academia.edu/3337883/Allahabad_University_Alumni_Association_AUAA_Ghziabad_chapter_registered_under_Society_Act_1860_with_Registration_No._407_2000_List_of_42_Proud_Past_Alumni_of_the_University_of_Allahabad_not_a_book_but_proof_of_honor_to_42th_personality_“Proud of Past Alumni list as a proof”]
  8. ^ “Proud Past of UoA, DOC”. Allahabad University Alumni Association
  9. ^ “Proud Past of UoA, PDF as on first web page started from 2000 i.e. oldest part 1”. Allahabad University Alumni Association
  10. ^ “Proud Past of UoA, PDF as on first web page started from 2000 i.e. oldest part 2 of part 1 in which Dr. Pandey's name included”. Allahabad University Alumni Association
  11. ^ ““Proud Past of UoA, DOC”. Allahabad University Alumni Association
  • Keep. If any registered Alumni Association keep the name of his Proud of Past Alumni/Famous Alumni on his web page since 2008 to 2012/13 and person is real alumni of the University and also all the details about that paticular alumni is correct and match with his carrier then such declared Proud Past alumnae Dr. Pandey is the real Proud Past and no one should go on exception of any ex-Prime-Minister of India(wrongly quoted). If the University of Allahabad Alumni Association or any other person denie his declaration about the members actually the alumnae of University of Allahabad then this will create a dis-famousion claim by law of India. Pandey is an patent in activities as a true India by the Inter-National Self Servant organization of Allahabad i.e. the national and international thinker of Allahabad and this is the reason he has written clearly each and every message on his blog "Vivekanand and Modern Tradition". His Sanatan/Eternal Brahmin family is the indirect energy of his own and there is no force to force him to speak the untruth thus in a well manner he connected Hindu and his associated religion as 1st part; Islam and his associated wings as 2nd part; and Christian and his associated religion as 3rd part and finally by Shri Ramaism and Shri Krishnaism he connected Islam and Christianity with the Sanatan Hindu i.e. the Hindu as both works parallel either of the Shri Ramaism and Shri Krishnaism respectively. Thus this patent of confluence of Tri-Power/Tri-River/ Triveni/ Prayag/ Allahabad will travel a long way in the International society for a long time. I therefor want the article of this patent of Allahabad i.e. the article of Pandey on the wikipedia for ever so that people could track his activities in future which will be very beneficial for the Indian community and therefore the World community. 117.241.104.19 ( talk) 10:52, 6 August 2014 (UTC) — 117.241.104.19 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Hoary ( talk) 12:51, 6 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Hoary ( talk) 12:51, 6 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Hoary ( talk) 12:51, 6 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I find it extraordinarily difficult to understand the more favorable comments above, but gather that there's a claim that Pandey is notable as a religious thinker and blogger on matters pertaining to Hinduism, Islam and Christianity. If this is so, then people knowledgable about and dispassionately interested in one or more of these religions should be invited to comment. I've therefore transcluded this AfD in the DELSORT page of each of these three religions. I hope that the closing administrator allows time for comments by such people. -- Hoary ( talk) 12:51, 6 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Pandey has no scholarship whatsoever in this area: no published books in WorldCat and no research papers in any humanities journal. Consequently, it is ipso facto clear that he has no notability stemming from whatever knowledge he might have regarding religion. Agricola44 ( talk) 13:20, 6 August 2014 (UTC). reply
  • I don't dispute some of your premisses, Agricola44. Moreover, I can derive no sense from either (A) what little I've glanced at of his writing in English about religion on his blog or (B) the praise for this as presented above. But I'm aware that much (most?) writing about religion makes no sense to me (or/so is deeply soporific). Religious significance (as I very hazily understand it) isn't limited to academic theology. The article " Interfaith dialogue" suggests that, from India, one Morari Bapu is important. The (very dodgy looking) article on the latter doesn't hint that he has what would normally be called scholarship, any published books in WorldCat or any research papers in any humanities journal. (Rather, he gives "9 day-long sermons".) So I'd be interested to see what those people who, unlike me, can make sense of religion would dispassionately say about religious significance (if any) here. -- Hoary ( talk) 23:32, 6 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Article created on the day before birth day of Dr. Pandey (DOB:01-08-1976) who given important facts1) that Islam works parallel to Shri Ramaism and Christianity works parallel to Shri Krishnaims and as Shri Ram is elder than Shri Krishna therefore Islam is elder than Christianity.2) Kashi- Varanasi is the first place of Lord Shiva on the Earth and after that he went to Mount Kailash. Lord Shiva originated at Kashi with his tri-power/Trishul Shakti i.e. with Kedareswar, Mahamrityunjay and Vishveswar/ Vishwanath. These fact are very interesting results of his thoughts on his blog "Vivekanand and Modern Tradition". The conclusion of his blog by religious experts and philosopher is very important for our scattered world society who are fighting against each other for there tiny selfishness and identity. I hope the goal of Dr. Pandey is to make the world as a village and people of world as a family. Some one in the debate said that tracking of Dr. Pandey will be easy by world community if his article will be here is almost better if we catch and read Dr. Pandey as an academician, scientist, philosopher, blogger, a common man of the world society with a permanent service in University of Allahabad and a villager of his both residence Bishunpur-Jaunpur and Ramapur which also say that he is from the Sanatan/Eternal Brahmin Family too. At least he influenced from Indian Institute of Science Bangalore, Banaras Hindu University and University of Allahabad where is good existence of all the religions. I suggest to keep him here. 117.199.150.36 ( talk) 06:38, 7 August 2014 (UTC) — 117.199.150.36 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
  • Comment. I have some of the references of his publications present on Worldcat also his own article on Worldcat library and other internatinal forum:

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

  • Comment: he may have written papers, but Google Scholar shows that virtually nobody is taking any notice -- he has an h-index of only 2 (the lowest I've ever seen when considering WP:PROF at AfD). And if he's seriously arguing that Islam is older than Christianity, then WP:FRINGE applies too. -- 101.117.59.207 ( talk) 09:23, 7 August 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Comment. We read above (in a contribution of this person in Allahabad) that Pandey given important facts1) that Islam works parallel to Shri Ramaism and Christianity works parallel to Shri Krishnaims [sic] and as Shri Ram is elder than Shri Krishna therefore Islam is elder than Christianity. Of course what really matters is the degree to which independent, published, reliable sources say that Pandey gave (or given) important facts. Perhaps an IP can provide links. In the meantime, though: This seems Extremely Deep Thought. The reasoning seems to be: "If (i) x "works parallel to" belief in a, (ii) y "works parallel to" belief in b, (iii) a is older than b, then x is older than y. ¶ According to some encyclopedia I found on the web, Islam is very roughly six hundred years younger than Christianity. I take the IP's word for the claim that "Islam works parallel to Shri Ramaism and Christianity works parallel to Shri [Krishnaism]". I'm not familiar with "work parallel to" in a formalism; I can't think what it means other than "is parallel to". If Islam is parallel to Ramaism and Christianity is parallel to Krishnaism, then (as "p is parallel to q" is commutative) Ramaism is parallel to Islam and Krishnaism. And by the IP's account of Pandey's logic, Ramaism is therefore younger than Krishnaism. -- Hoary ( talk) 13:16, 7 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comments. I am very agree with the Dr. Pandey's blog's every statement and after realization in deep I also found each religion meets to Sanatan Hindu and also it is similar in some extent to Swami Vivekananda. But now Dr. Pandey completed it being a Sanatan/eternal Brahmin while Swami Vivekanand was not a perfect Brahmin but only a Rajaswa Brahmin/Kayashth of Bengali Hindu family and pupil of Swami Ramakrishna Paramhans who belong from perfect Brahmin family. That is why some thing was missing with him due to fact of two bodies view differences although it was a good effort of Swami ji(conversation converted in some extent to lag in exact meaning). His brief biography on Worldcat library significant of what? [1] 14.139.244.247 ( talk) 10:26, 7 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  1. ^ "Dr. Pandey's biography in Worldcat Library". Worldcat library have Dr. Pandey's biography
  • Keep. As per our best knowledge, belief and faith in the religion Dr. Pandey's view on his blog is to make a gather the scattered world indeed and I found him most notable person of the world in these days of disturbed world. He is good academician or bad it is not matter here but as I know from the different sources that he was not able to get the time to make himself a very best scientist and academician but he was overladed with the responsibilities which was based on the behaviour and cooperation of others and whose view was also different with him but finaly he succeed due to his great resistance power and personality. Now the person and student will take benefit of his aim to become a good scientist and academician fore ever. He was pillar of that work which gives immense pleasure to the humanity and now it is over. Therefore I need his article on wikipedia and thanks in advance for keep him here. 14.139.244.243 ( talk) 11:45, 7 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. It is clear from debate that article on Pandey is notable as per his over all noble personalty. We have a better future under his guidance and a better academic and scientist hidden in him but he could not get to perform on the platform of UoA because of the international ship which he was leading for make a safe future of world on that ship others have different view and goal against him. I expect that in all respect pandey's article on wikipedia is most needful and extraordinary as looks from his blog. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.89.128.63 ( talk • contribs) — 59.89.128.63 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • ‘‘‘Keep’’’. About the matter in his blog and benefit to the World community regarding religious and philosophical view and athentification and make perfect the work of Swami Vivekananda we have to look back ground of Dr. Vivek Kumar Pandey: he is from a village Ramapur donated by Muslim/ Islam following Landlord and his grand father Bachan Ram’s closed friend in Mumbai was great christian of India George Fernandes during the leadership of trade union; he belong from a family of Sanatan/Eternal Kashyap/ Kashmir Gotriya Brahmin; and he born in Sanatan/Eternal Vashishtha/ Mount Kailash Gotriya Brahmin family of his father’s maternal father belongs to Bishunpur donated by Kshatriya landlord where he live for whole life before he came to Prayag/ Triveni/ Allahabad and people of these village are Sanatan/ Eternal Gautam/ Gorakhpur/ Mount Kailash Gotriya (Baudh:Gautam Budhdha:Gautam Gotriya Kshatriya]] Brahmin. ----Please tell how such person will not complete the aim of Swami Vivekananda by his blog “Vivekanand and Modern Tradition” [1]. I understand that the blog of Pandey is view of the world as he belong from the family of Prem Chand Pandey and also among his closest who is world fame personality from India. Thus I personaly found Dr. Pandey notable who maintain the order of Professor Prem Chand Pandey for completeing the aim and objective of his Guru Professor Murali Manohar Joshi and Professor Srivastava Ji for the University of Allahabad, India and thus for the World community. 27.124.24.6 ( talk) 14:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC) — 27.124.24.6 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
  1. ^ “Vivekanand and Modern Tradition”. Blog of Dr. Vivek Kumar Pandey
  1. ^ “Membership No. F/347”. (PDF) Society of Earth Scientist we page have record of the Fellow of Dr. Vivek Kumar Pandey
  2. ^ “Pandey is life member of International Academy of Physical Sciences in Academy membership no. N14231”. Pandey life member of IAPS
  3. ^ “IMS Directory of Life member tag have membership no. 1034 for Dr. Vivek Kumar Pandey”. Indian meteorological Society web Site have life membership record of Dr. Vivek Kumar Pandey
  • Delete and salt. Does not show any notability as concerns Wikipedia, and far from it, it reads like a CV for a job application. I have never seen a Wikipedia article scrape the barrel so definitively: "high marks in High School examination"; "his blog view page more than 25000 within one year"; "1st prize in science quize". And this reads like it was included so as to pander to the government or an employer who might be reading the article rather than a general reader: "Moderate thoughts of Nationalism and Internationalism but he involves himself in such activities in his own personal routine time after performing his daily academic and scientific responsibilities." - Lopifalko ( talk)
  • Comment. As per actual date of birth he born on 11:11( November 11):1975 i.e. on the National Education Day (India). Please tell me how many paper published by Shri Ram and Shri Krishna? Answer comes that all the paper published by the Valmiki and Tulsidas and Maharshi Vyas ji based on their life. How many paper published by Brahma, Vishnu and Mahesh? Answer comes that the whole humanity of the world based on Seven Brahmarshi i.e. Saptarshi have written so many papers on then and still there is no any end of this and still the Rishis/Scientists are writing and publishing paper on them or on the Super personality created by them and also many papers are being published on the combined of the Trimurti i.e Brahma+Vishnu+Mahesh i.e. on the Parambrahm i.e. on the Parmeshwar i.e. on the God i.e. on the Allah i.e. on the Brahm i.e. on the Sita- Rama i.e. on the Radha- Krishna i.e. on the Ram-Janki i.e. on the Radhe-Krishna. Publication of paper needed a base and that base is Dr. Vivek Kumar Pandey since 2001 for the humanity. If you have no resources and no topic then how and on what you will write a paper. If there is no existence of Nature/Women and Purush/Men then even Parambrahm/Brahm have no any shape and thus this universe have no life/humanity and in such case life will combined with matter i.e. the Brahm and thus he will called the perfect Allah and in case of Dr. Pandey in 2001, when not even a single a family members either men and women were with him i.e. not understanding his grief but only want to fulfil the dream and objective of Professor Murali Manohar Joshi (i.e the supreme God of Allahabad at that particular time), which was given to solve to his family(own and maternal uncle's) in that case he fulfil this with his physical presence(not from outside) means such work one do from out side in general case(the work was to save the humanity of the world generated by Saptarshi of Prayag/Allahabad not only a foundation of a centre of university and also to found a substitute of the basic building block of the society from Allahabad who will take place of the old age Brahma, Vishnu and Mahesh present in the humanity in the India and world and in more extent that is over). 14.139.244.243 ( talk) 10:44, 8 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Hello to you at Allahabad University! Sorry, but gods and numerology fail to excite me. Instead let's talk about the number three. Just today, you deleted the AfD template from the article once, twice, thrice. Why is this? Do you find "Please do not remove or change this AfD message until the issue is settled" hard to understand? -- Hoary ( talk) 13:25, 8 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment -- This is a horrible article. It does not help that so many "friends and supporters" seem to be intervening. The question is ultimately whether the subject's academic publications are imnportant enough to meet WP:ACADEMIC. Running a blog certainly does not amount to that, nor (unless he is supposed to be a theologian) should anything related to Hindu or other gods. If he has done (and published in peer-reviewed jounrals) important academic work that work needs to be properly described and cited. If not, the article should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterkingiron ( talk • contribs)
  • Given to me no reasonable sources. Delete I want to see this, horrible article that seems, victim of bable fish it is, Yoda me told. Serten ( talk) 15:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. After all the article is not less degree notable than any most important article on the Wikipedia. There is many aspects which have any source on the web page of the internet as once ability can be judge by a personal meet with him. I have a look on Dr. Pandey and his personalities personally and socially from near and there and found unique on this earth. I just say that on the over all debates that it is Dr. Pandey who is more important than the his article on this Wikipedia. Keep it fore ever to track his life graph which will be going to rise very fast in near future on the world map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.153.251 ( talk) 16:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC) — 117.199.153.251 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
  • Keep. Article is notable one and am agree with the just above request to keep. Pandey is the more over important and notable than he linked on any web page. We should have his article for future perspective as the IP argued about Dr. Pandey. 117.199.154.35 ( talk) 11:16, 9 August 2014 (UTC) — 117.199.154.35 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Rcsprinter123 (converse) @ 12:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC) reply

The New Press (imprint)

The New Press (imprint) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Apparently non-notable (though it's almost impossible to tell with such a commonplace name). Appears to fail WP:CORP. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 00:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

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

  • Keep. No, it's not almost impossible to tell, it's just harder to tell than it is for a publisher called "Hamish Hamilton" or "Phaidon" or whatever. For example, googling "the new press" -leveson -greenslade site:theguardian.com brings a review of a notable book published by NP, an obituary of its founder, and more. The obituary prompts me to add "Schiffrin" to the mix; unsurprisingly, googling "the new press" schiffrin site:nytimes.com brings a promising selection of sources. ¶ Incidentally, after this AfD has run its course and the article given a new lease of life, it should be moved to " The New Press". -- Hoary ( talk) 00:55, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:53, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:54, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:54, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Publisher of much renown, widely regarded for innovation in its field, has published numerous notable authors and notable award winning works. Widely referenced from a good number of broadsheet newspapers. There is nothing not to like here. - Lopifalko ( talk)
  • Keep Agree with above. -- Green C 04:34, 3 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Kmccook, Hoary & Lopifalko. Notable publisher of numerous notable authors & works. Also agree w/ Hoary - should be renamed The New Press, as no disambiguation in the title is necessary.-- JayJasper ( talk) 17:53, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

GetAuto

GetAuto (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not seem to meet WP:ORG. All of the sources seem to be rehashed press releases, and none seem to really meet WP:RS. 2 of the sources are from the subject. A search for sources did not turn up anything aside from more rehashed press releases, advertisements, or promotional websites. TLSuda ( talk) 00:25, 24 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker talk 00:15, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2014_August_1&oldid=1142629875"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE