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. The article was deleted as per WP:CSD#A7 by admin @ Bbb23:.— CutestPenguin ^Hangout 16:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC) reply

M. M. Manasi

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

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

Article that is basically a resume. Also falls under too soon it seems. Wgolf ( talk) 22:47, 15 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:34, 15 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 11:38, 16 September 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 (Non-admin closure) Snuggums ( talk / edits) 03:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Lpr

Lpr (  | 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 does not establish its notability by showing significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject itself. Codename Lisa ( talk) 04:02, 6 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Articles on individual OS commands do not belong on Wikipedia, and this command is not in any way particularly notable. SJK ( talk) 05:14, 6 September 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep There are numerous books which establish the notability of the topic - see Windows Administration at the Command Line, for example. A general prohibition of content about computer commands does not seem sensible; it would be like forbidding content about mathematical operations and symbols. If the current content of the page is not liked then there are obvious alternatives to deletion such as merger with print job and our editing policy is to prefer these. Andrew ( talk) 08:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Hi. Please do show us these numerous books. The one you are showing here make Windows administration notable, not Lpr. Notability requires significant coverage not passing and circumstantial coverage. Also, it is only source, not multiple. Best regards, Codename Lisa ( talk) 13:26, 6 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Same issues as previous nomination. Bit of deja vu going on here. Anyway, individual commands would have to be very special indeed to pass the general notability guideline without running afoul of our policy on how-to pages. This command does not adequately do so. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 01:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Comment  There is no pretense to a deletion argument here.  In addition, the nomination shows neither evidence of WP:ATD nor components of WP:BEFORE.  Unscintillating ( talk) 01:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• The ATD part is untrue (see my comment below). And the burden of evidence is with the contributor, not nominator. But, I've seen you adding comments like this indiscriminately to far too many deletion discussions, regardless of the article's contents, simply to disrupt and harass. You are showing WP:NOTHERE tendencies. Perhaps it is time you are reported to ANI? Fleet Command ( talk) 04:49, 8 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• With respect, I am certain that WP:BURDEN does not bear the meaning that you are trying to ascribe to it, for the reasons that I have already explained at the AfD for SUBST. I do not believe that Unscintillating is trying to disrupt anything or harass anyone. James500 ( talk) 15:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• With equal respect, I disagree. Both WP:BEFORE and WP:GNG entail looking for sources. And I have see Unscintillating making these ad hominem arguments once too many to concern myself giving it contextual value. History shows it lacks. Fleet Command ( talk) 05:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete or merge. We cannot keep this article in this state but Codename Lisa and Lesser Cartographies previously worked to keep lp (Unix) article by rewriting and merging it into System V printing system. (CL was the nom.) Maybe a suitable merge target for this one can also be found? Fleet Command ( talk) 04:49, 8 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• See below for the new rec. Fleet Command ( talk) 20:08, 17 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep—Thanks to FleetCommand for the ping. There is actually more information out there on Lpr than there was on Lp (Unix), so I have no doubt a solid article can be assembled. Unfortunately, Codename Lisa has nominated a couple other command-line programs that I consider to be notable, so I don't know that I'll be able to get to this in the next few days. Lesser Cartographies ( talk) 04:56, 8 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• @ Lesser Cartographies: Oh, I checked and am checking them. This is the only one that I thought might be worth saving (how would you save an article on COLOR command?) and this is the only one that is not Windows-related. People who know about Windows are easier to find, so don't worry. Fleet Command ( talk) 05:03, 8 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• @ FleetCommand:: See my modest rant here on how I think these articles should be researched and written. Lesser Cartographies ( talk) 05:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Oh, I saw it alright... and wept. Fleet Command ( talk) 05:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Striking keep !vote, changing to merge + redirect below. Lesser Cartographies ( talk) 02:43, 17 September 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, Natg 19 ( talk) 22:32, 15 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete For all the discussion here, the fact remains that there isn't extensive coverage in reliable secondary sources - it's brief stuff inside of Unix, Linux, MAC materials. Nwlaw63 ( talk) 23:28, 15 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Comment— Nwlaw63, here are just a handful of the results from a search on google books.

• Powers, Shelly, ed. (2002). Unix Power Tools (3rd ed.). O'Reilly. pp. 914–918. ISBN  978-0-596-00330-2. See sections 45.2, 45.3, 45.4 and 45.5.
• Nemeth, Evi (2013). UNIX and Linux System Administration Handbook (3rd (revised) ed.). Pearson Education. pp. 1032–1084. ISBN  978-0-13-148005-6. In particular, see pages 1054–1064, "BSD and AIX Printing".
• Gibbs, Mark (June 26, 2000). "Primed to Print, UNIX Style". Network World. p. 56.
• Levi, Bozidar (2002). UNIX Administration. CRC Press. pp. 227–260. ISBN  0-8493-1351-1.
• Gibbs, Mark (June 19, 2000). "All that's fit to LPR". Network World. p. 68.
• Radermacher, Todd (2000). Network Printing (1st ed.). O'Reilly. pp. 31–45. ISBN  0-596-00038-3.

To a first approximation, every Unix sysadmin book from the BSD release until CUPS took over will have a section on printing, and that section will go on at some length as to why there exists two (or three, or four) different printing systems, and a bit about their history. This was not an obscure topic, so tech writers needing to fill magazine pages would contribute their own two cents. Plenty of ink was spilled on the whys and wherefores of this print system well beyond the syntax of the individual commands. I'm not seeing any problem at all with establishing notability. Lesser Cartographies ( talk) 01:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Reply With respect, you and I appear to have very different ideas of what constitutes notability. All but one of the sources you gave again gives some brief mentions of Lpr inside a larger context. I'm looking for extensive coverage exclusively of the subject. Nwlaw63 ( talk) 04:20, 17 September 2014 (UTC) reply

@ Nwlaw63:, I think you might have confused lpr-the-printing-system with lpr-the-command. The WP:RS I cited demonstrates the notability of the system. The individual commands that make up the system are likely not notable. Lesser Cartographies ( talk) 10:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC) Late add: I fixed exactly the same problem at the Lp (Unix) article, but didn't do the same for this article. Sorry about that; we were talking about two completely different things. I'll do a quick rewrite.... Lesser Cartographies ( talk) 10:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Merge+Redirect to Line Printer Daemon protocol. As noted by FleetCommand above, this is a similar situation to Lp (Unix) where the same system has multiple names. Lesser Cartographies ( talk) 02:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Merge+Redirect to Line Printer Daemon protocol. Lesser Cartographies (clearly they are on a roll) has found multiple in-depth reliable sources sufficient to to demonstrate notability of the topic. Based on that I would recommend keep. But it is true that lpr and the Line Printer Daemon protocol are closely related and in the interests of consensus, a merge and redirect is also a reasonable course of action. -- Mark viking ( talk) 03:55, 17 September 2014 (UTC) reply
• Update—Those not participating at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lp (Unix) wouldn't have caught that those who did participate were discussing the notability of the lpr printing system rather than the lpr command in that system. My bad. I've done a quick hack on the article to refocus it; the citations I provided above should now make a lot more sense. Thanks to Nwlaw63 for pointing this out. Lesser Cartographies ( talk) 10:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC) reply
• Merge and Redirect to Line Printer Daemon protocol. Having a compromise is better than having no consensus. Fleet Command ( talk) 20:08, 17 September 2014 (UTC) reply
• Merge and Redirect is fine with me. (Nominator). Best regards, Codename Lisa ( talk) 09:17, 18 September 2014 (UTC) reply
• Merge and Redirect In the interest of consensus, and because of the clarification that this is about the system and not the command, I'm changing my choice from Delete to Merge and Redirect. Nwlaw63 ( talk) 16:16, 18 September 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. That's overall, after the rewrite we've seen only keep opinions.  Sandstein  16:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC) reply

DELTREE

DELTREE (  | 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 does not establish its notability by showing significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject itself. Codename Lisa ( talk) 04:02, 6 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Articles on individual OS commands do not belong on Wikipedia, and this command is not in any way particularly notable. SJK ( talk) 05:14, 6 September 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep There are numerous books which establish the notability of the topic - see Windows Administration at the Command Line, for example. A general prohibition of content about computer commands does not seem sensible; it would be like forbidding content about mathematical operations and symbols. If the current content of the page is not liked then there are obvious alternatives to deletion such as merger with directory structure. Andrew ( talk) 07:59, 6 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Hi. Please do show us those numerous books. This is only one book, its coverage is two paragraphs and the coverage is not significant; it is circumstantial and brief. So, I guess you said "delete" only haven't realized it yet. Best regards, Codename Lisa ( talk) 13:30, 6 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Very bad idea to have articles on individual commands. Besides that, I don't see any evidence that this is notable. A brief how-to mention in a manual does not establish notability. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 01:32, 7 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Comment  There is no pretense to a deletion argument here.  In addition, the nomination shows neither evidence of WP:ATD nor components of WP:BEFORE.  Unscintillating ( talk) 01:14, 8 September 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete; consider partial merge. Maybe this article along with rmdir, rm (Unix) and del (command) can be merged into file deletion to diversify its contents but the merge cannot be full because of WP:NOTMANUAL policy. Or maybe one can transwiki them all to Wikibooks. Fleet Command ( talk) 04:41, 8 September 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep so that it may be merged to File deletion. If the article were deleted, it would be harder to do a merge. Vadmium ( talk, contribs) 05:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC). reply
• Keep—Generally speaking, standard command-line utilities have a presumption of notability. At some point in history people noticed there was a problem that wasn't getting solved well enough with existing techniques, several attempts were usually made at a solution, a solution becomes standardized, and as the world moves on the solution can become obsolete. That story is what ought to be reflected in the article, and for recent, well-documented operating systems like MS-DOS, WP:RS is not all that difficult to find. The story here is pretty straightforward: MSDOS introduced subdirectories without thinking through how they would be used, people complained about the problem until competing products started implementing solutions, Microsoft took notice and eventually (MSDOS 6!) added their own solution, and it got dropped as part of the transition away from MSDOS-based operating systems. I didn't know any of that 30 minutes ago, btw. I need to track down a few older cites and I'll then set about rewriting the article. Lesser Cartographies ( talk) 05:11, 8 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• That kind of notability isn't required in Wikipedia. Wikipedia notability guideline says: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail. Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. Sorry. I think you shouldn't waste time on this one. Fleet Command ( talk) 05:16, 8 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Too late. Lesser Cartographies ( talk) 07:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Update—I've rewritten the article. Quotes from the sources I used are on the talk page. There's more WP:RS to add, particularly with the security implications, but I think the current state is enough to get out of AfD. Codename Lisa, SJK, Andrew, NinjaRobotPirate, Unscintillating, Fleet Command: please take a look and let me know what else you think is required. Lesser Cartographies ( talk) 07:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Satisfies GNG. Does not, in its present form, look anything like a manual. James500 ( talk) 18:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC) reply
• Comment. I dunno. I think there's enough to good content that it could be merged to an article on the history of DOS, but I'm still reluctant to keep the article. It's a well-written and referenced article, but it still falls a bit short of what I would like to see as far as significant coverage. One could certainly argue that some DOS and UNIX commands are notable, just as there are notable Pokemon, but I think the vast majority should be deleted or merged, just as the non-notable Pokemon were. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 05:14, 11 September 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, Natg 19 ( talk) 22:31, 15 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep With Lesser Cartographies significant rewrite, this is now a well-referenced start-class article sourced to multiple reliable sources. Thus notability of the topic is demonstrated according to WP:GNG. The article content itself is descriptive and encyclopedic with no major problems. A notable topic and an article with no major problems suggests keeping the article. Nice work. -- Mark viking ( talk) 21:43, 16 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep article has sufficiently improved since nomination such that the original contentions are now moot. Yamaguchi先生 ( talk) 18:41, 22 September 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:11, 23 September 2014 (UTC) reply

ATTRIB

ATTRIB (  | 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 does not establish its notability by showing significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject itself. Codename Lisa ( talk) 04:03, 6 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Articles on individual OS commands do not belong on Wikipedia, and this command is not in any way particularly notable. Many operating systems have commands that perform similar functions; the function itself (adjusting file attributes) may be notable, but the specific commands used on particular operating systems to do it are not. SJK ( talk) 05:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep There are numerous books which establish the notability of the topic - see Introduction To Computers And Communication, for example. A general prohibition of content about computer commands does not seem sensible; it would be like forbidding content about mathematical operations and symbols. If the current content of the page is not liked then there are obvious alternatives to deletion such as merger with file attribute. Andrew ( talk) 07:54, 6 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Hi. Please do show us those numerous books. This is only one book, its coverage is two paragraphs and the coverage is not significant; it is circumstantial and brief. So, I guess you said "delete" only haven't realized it yet. Best regards, Codename Lisa ( talk) 13:31, 6 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Comment  There is no pretense to a deletion argument here in the nomination.  In addition, the nomination shows neither evidence of WP:ATD nor components of WP:BEFORE.  Unscintillating ( talk) 00:57, 8 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Unscintillating, showing such an evidences is not required, although this particular nominator does show that evidence. I just come from an AfD that I personally closed; this particular nominator had started it and worked in concert with another editor to help keep the article. To make worse, I've personally seen you attempting to disrupt far too many AfDs with a similar comment like this. You are showing strong evidences of WP:NOTHERE tendencies. If you continue, you will end up in ANI. Fleet Command ( talk) 04:34, 8 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• @ User:FleetCommand: With respect, Unscintillating is quite correct in saying that the nominator's original rationale does not appear to advance a valid argument for deletion. The rationale appears to be that the article doesn't cite sources that demonstrate its notability. But we all know that if such sources exist, it is immaterial whether they are cited or otherwise mentioned in the article at the moment. His comments do not appear to be disruptive. James500 ( talk) 13:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• You sure you are talking about the same person? Because I am not seeing what you are saying in the message above. Plus, I've seen him pull this stunt in far too many AfDs to concern myself with your defense. In addition, per WP:BURDEN, nominator has no such responsibility. Fleet Command ( talk) 04:58, 9 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• ( edit conflict) @ FleetCommand:  My comment seeks to improve the quality of AfD.  Unscintillating ( talk) 05:33, 9 September 2014 (UTC) reply
• ( edit conflict) For reference, your list of edits on User talk pages is available at [1].  Unscintillating ( talk) 05:33, 9 September 2014 (UTC) reply
• ( edit conflict) You were advised when you posted here, "that commenting on other users rather than the article is...considered disruptive."  Please assert that, and explain how, the statement, "I've personally seen you attempting to disrupt..." is not a comment on another user.  Unscintillating ( talk) 05:33, 9 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Unscintillating, I didn't find your initial comment helpful. By the principle of charity, I read Codename Lisa's objection as one of topic notability. While I would have preferred a bit more evidence of WP:BEFORE, that (or its absence) does not change whether or not the topic is notable. Citing WP:ATD is likewise not helpful if you're not going to dive in and start making the edits. The best method of establishing notability is improving the article such that notability is obvious. The second-best method is providing sources so that others made do so. Attacking the nomination, even if the nomination is flawed, doesn't establish notability. Lesser Cartographies ( talk) 07:14, 9 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• I finally got around to skimming your link.  AfD is not a collegial academic exercise.  An AfD nomination requires breaking the WP:AGF of content contributions of the work of our content contributors.  Unscintillating ( talk) 03:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• With all due respect, that is a very mean thing to say; and, I am afraid, very much explains your hostile behavior across Wikipedia. People do mistakes in good faith, and we love them exactly because they have the courage to do that mistake. In case of AfD, assuming good faith is guaranteed. If I see reasons for assuming bad faith, I'd start an ANI or ArbCom case instead. Best regards, Codename Lisa ( talk) 08:34, 20 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• @ Codename Lisa: I'm confused.  To assume good faith, I have to assume that this was not a case of "commenting on other users", because otherwise as per the Group notice the comment would be a disruptive WP:NPA.  Please assert that this was not commenting on other users, and explain why.  12:28, 20 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• I am not ashamed of assuming good faith and loving people. And yes, commenting on other people – like you did at the start of this discussion thread – is disruptive an hurtful. You do it in my AfDs. Best regards, Codename Lisa ( talk) 13:50, 20 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• My initial comment is an analysis of the nomination.  I modified the comment in one place to make it more black and white that it was a comment on the nomination.  Hope that helps.  Unscintillating ( talk) 14:32, 20 September 2014 (UTC) reply
• @ Codename Lisa: Not sure if that is an answer or not, and I want to continue to WP:AGF.  I'll be more specific.  Please assert and explain that "that is a very mean thing to say" is not commenting on other users, "your hostile behavior across Wikipedia" is not commenting on other users.  Unscintillating ( talk) 14:32, 20 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• AfD nominations that can be corrected are one reason that we have WP:SK with WP:NPASR.  I expect that AfD quality would improve quickly if about 1–3% of daily nominations were immediately closed WP:SK WP:NPASR.  Unscintillating ( talk) 04:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete or transwiki. This page is essentially a tutorial and its existence is against WP:NOTMANUAL. It is more like a Wikibook or Wikiversity material. Fleet Command ( talk) 04:34, 8 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Changed after article updates. See below. Fleet Command ( talk) 20:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep—A cursory search of google books turned up the following:

• Petzold, Charles (June 10, 1986). "Changing DOS File Attributes". PC Magazine. pp. 249–262. PC-DOS's ATTRIB utiitylets you change the Read-Only attribute bit. ATTR.COM gives you access to the other attributes as well. As an aside, Charles Petzold is a moderately big deal in the Windows universe and here he provides you with assembly language listings. Because he's that kind of guy.
• O'Reilly, Tim; Mott, Troy; Glenn, Walter J. (1999). Windows 98 in a Nutshell: A Desktop Quick Reference. O'Reilly. pp. 303–306. ISBN  1-56592-486-X.
• Jones, James G.; Landes, Craig (2003). A+ Exam Cram 2: Windows 2000 Directory Services Infrastructure. Que. pp. 309–310. ISBN  0-7897-2867-2. Provides a case study of where attrib might be useful after a crash.

Lesser Cartographies ( talk) 09:23, 8 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions § Denying the antecedent: Establishing notability is necessary but is not enough. The article is written like a tutorial. Fleet Command ( talk)

• Hi FleetCommand. That is one opinion (and a good one). Here's another: If the subject of an article has been proven to pass notability guidelines, there is no need for a deletion discussion. per Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. In my (limited) experience, I can't bring to mind an example a discussion at AfD that deemed the topic notable and resulted in deletion (aside from trivial examples like duplication, attack pages, etc.). That's not to say the argument you propose is against policy or can't be successful. But in practice, a demonstration of notability seems to correlate highly with closing admins keeping the article, regardless of the current state of the article. Lesser Cartographies ( talk) 05:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Actually, you have misquoted. The full quotation also requires "...can be improved through normal editing...". This one cannot. Fleet Command ( talk) 06:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep and improve. The sources offered by Andrew and Lesser Cartographies satisfy GNG. In all probability, any instruction can be rewritten as a description. James500 ( talk) 14:03, 8 September 2014 (UTC) reply
• If the article content must be deleted, please at least allow a redirect to File attribute#Editing to remain. Vadmium ( talk, contribs) 03:24, 11 September 2014 (UTC). reply

• Agreed. It's a nice suggestion. Best regards, Codename Lisa ( talk) 03:44, 11 September 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, Natg 19 ( talk) 22:31, 15 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep per Lesser Cartographies' and Andrew's reliable source finds. Multiple in-depth reliable sources show the topic satisfies notability per WP:GNG. The article needs a bit of cleanup to remove howto material and better sourcing, but these are matters of ordinary editing, not deletion. A notable topic and an article with potential, per WP:POTENTIAL, suggests keeping the article. -- Mark viking ( talk) 22:02, 16 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• @ Mark viking: Look, you are ignoring the WP:NOTMANUAL issue. This article is written like tutorial and notable or not, has no right to be in Wikipedia. (Nominator's fault for not mentioning but) I can re-AfD this article for WP:NOTMANUAL immediately after this one is closed, if it really suites you. Still, somehow, I think discussing it here is more civil. Fleet Command ( talk) 06:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• @ FleetCommand:, ok, I'll rewrite it. Lesser Cartographies ( talk) 09:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC) reply
• Since my recommendation, Lesser Cartographies has in fact removed the howto content (I should have done this myself, thanks LC!), leaving an encyclopedic stub suitable for expansion given the references found. I consider the assertion "no right to be in Wikipedia" as another way of saying WP:IDONTLIKEIT. There are no "rights" here as such--the main purpose of an AfD discussion is to determine whether a particular topic has the potential to become a reasonable article. In this case, the article is already reasonable and sources found show this topic has potential for at least a well-sourced, modest encyclopedic article. Note that renomination of a topic right after close of a previous discussion is usually considered disruptive and often results in a speedy keep. AfD is not for renomination until you get the result you want. -- Mark viking ( talk) 10:14, 17 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• @ FleetCommand and Mark viking:, I'm done with my first pass at the rewrite. Lesser Cartographies ( talk) 10:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• The prose has been expanded and better referenced. I see no manual-like content nor any how-to prose. The refs all look like RS, four secondary and two primary. It looks like a perfectly fine short article. I think the emphasis on history, context and impact could serve as a useful template for other articles on OS commands. Nice work! -- Mark viking ( talk) 15:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Merge into file attribute. After the rewrite by LC, the article is no longer a manual but it is not talking about attrib either. It is now talking about file attributes. Fleet Command ( talk) 20:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep this article as it is well authored, well cited, and contributes to the overall well being of an encyclopedia which aims to collect the sum of human knowledge. Yamaguchi先生 ( talk) 17:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• And off-topic. It is as much about Attrib as it is about Backup. Best regards, Codename Lisa ( talk) 08:34, 20 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep  Only one argument for deletion remains after more than two weeks of discussion, and that !vote does not cite any policies or guidelines.  That argument does not say that the topic is not notable, it says that the topic is "not in any way particularly notable", which would be true for the vast majority of material in the encyclopedia such as the notable figures from 800 A.D.  Notable topics can still be merged, but merging to file attributes doesn't make sense, as this topic is better handled as a stand-alone article.  If merge was really all that important, ATTRIB has many of the characteristics of DIR.  There is history (which I can only momentarily cite as WP:OR which is allowed on talk pages), when after MS removed the functionality of DIR to display hidden files (or maybe it was system files), ATTRIB was (IMO) preferred to DIR for basic directory listings.  Unscintillating ( talk) 15:10, 20 September 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:12, 23 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Arthur Charles Rothery Nutt

Arthur Charles Rothery Nutt (  | 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)

Does not meet WP:GNG as inventor of Artillery Miniature Range, which is not something I can find much about anywhere... — Gaff ^ταλκ 07:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment Who's Who 1935 is given as a reference (which would be convincing) but I was unable to verify it online. Boleyn ( talk) 09:31, 6 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Per Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Notes point # 5, a Who's Who entry does not prove notability — Gaff ^ταλκ 17:52, 6 September 2014 (UTC) reply
• Strong Keep I believe it is notable. There is several Google book mentions of him, plus the gazette entry, which confirms him withe the DSO. The DSO makes him notable. And what about this Google book entry, [ [2]] which links both him and the miniature range, together. scope_creep talk 12:44 6 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Per DSO article, there are 16,244 members. Only some are listed as notable. A Gazette newspaper snippet announcing that the award was given is not very notable. — Gaff ^ταλκ 17:56, 6 September 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Also, if Artillery Miniature Range is not notable to warrant a WP article, then why would the inventor be notable on that account? — Gaff ^ταλκ 17:59, 6 September 2014 (UTC) reply
  • The several google book entries you mentions that I find are two books that have his name mentioned, but I don't see more than his name being on a list. So, there is no dispute that he existed. Verifiable doe not equal notable. — Gaff ^ταλκ 18:17, 6 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ascii002 Talk Contribs GuestBook 13:20, 6 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Ascii002 Talk Contribs GuestBook 13:20, 6 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep – If anything this article has WP:POTENTIAL. The article is being added to the WikiProject Military history, which is quite active. Also, a note on their talk page as to this AFD will be posted. So I think project members will come on in to assist with developing the article. (The fact that an article on miniature ranges has not been developed is not determinative as to Nutt's notability. We are building, so the miniature range is an idea for another, worthwhile article.) – S. Rich ( talk) 04:51, 7 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• comment: Once the article on the mini range has been written (if in fact enough even exists on the topice), then perhaps an article on the inventor would be appropriate. More likely, however, a mention of the inventor's name in the article on the invention should be plenty. — Gaff ^ταλκ

• Delete - fails WP:SOLDIER. I don't see potential for this to be more than a stub Gbawden ( talk) 11:50, 7 September 2014 (UTC) reply
• Strong keep - His page is at least as important as a list of bus routes. The fact that there's no article on the range only means that no one has created it YET.-- Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 14:48, 7 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• "Importance" and notability are not the same thing. Wikipedia has different criteria for biographies as opposed to bus lines. Stars and planets have different criteria from characters in children's books. — Gaff ^ταλκ 23:44, 7 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Still Strong Keep-- Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 00:52, 8 September 2014 (UTC) reply

You are only allowed to !vote once in a deletion debate, therefore I've taken the liberty of striking your second !vote. Please also see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:58, 13 September 2014 (UTC) reply

I have de-bolded Jim's 2nd !vote and removed the strikeout which made it appear that the vote was changed. – S. Rich ( talk) 02:55, 13 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Comment. The DSO, as a second-level award, most certainly does not qualify him for an article. The invention of the range might. He does not appear to have a WW entry as claimed. I'm neutral. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 15:03, 8 September 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NPERSON and WP:SOLDIER. I'm sure he was a good man who served ably, but Wikinotable he quite simply is not. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:58, 13 September 2014 (UTC) reply
• Strong keep Several books refer to him, particularly in relation to the British Expeditionary Force (World War I). He invented the miniature range as a prisoner of war after the Battle of Le Cateau. There are further references to him in minutes of a select committee in relation to the East India Company. I believe there is great potential for the entry to be widened in scope over time MJT21 ( talk) 09:15, 14 September 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, Natg 19 ( talk) 22:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep I'm a little confused by what exactly this thing is that he invented, to be honest... But a guy whose contributions to military history and technology appear in multiple reliable sources? Yeah, that sounds sufficient to me, even if I don't personally understand his contribution. TheOther Bob 03:13, 22 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep Military history and the ins and outs of artillery ranges is outside my comfort zone too, but the article appears to be carefully researched, has multiple sources that suggest notability at a key point in time and makes interesting reading even for someone with only a general knowledge and passing interest, thereby fulfilling some key criteria for an entry. I suspect this is an article that could also be developed if it is allowed to stand and see no good reason for a hasty deletion. Libby norman ( talk) 23:26, 22 September 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 MASwings#Incidents_and_Accidents. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 01:43, 16 September 2014 (UTC) reply

MASwings Flight 3002

MASwings Flight 3002 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Do you have any evidence that would confirm notability?-- Petebutt ( talk) 13:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC) reply

WP:NOTNEWS, GNG, AIRCRASH. uNFORTUNATE YES, NOTABLE NO. Petebutt ( talk) 01:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Comment @ Petebutt:, I will not object to the deletion of the other two aviation accidents and incidents articles that I created, but this one is an exception ( [3] [4] [5]). If this gets deleted, we should just delete Haughey Air AgustaWestland AW139 crash, 2012 Philippine Piper Seneca crash, and so on. - The ChampionMan 1234 03:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The retention or deletion of those other articles is irrelevant to whether or not this one should be deleted or kept. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Tragic? Yes. Notable? No. There were 16 people on board and two died. The other examples given above were whole-of-aircraft losses where everyone on board died. Each claimed the life of an independently notable person. The flights don't inherit notability from those on board but are obviously subject to increased media attention because of particular passengers. The fact that an authority launched a routine investigation does not substantiate notability. St★lwart ¹¹¹ 05:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Correction: one person survived the 2012 Philippine Piper Seneca crash but it had broader consequences in terms of the aviation industry. St★lwart ¹¹¹ 05:52, 27 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep - Commercial airliner crash that involved fatalities, which is criteria that passes WP:AIRCRASH. The nom has only thrown up a WP:VAGUEWAVE rationale. -- Oakshade ( talk) 04:28, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

WP:AIRCRASH is an essay and one that contradicts policy and guidelines. From the essay itself - "Because this is an essay and not policy and also because it should not be applied to stand-alone accident articles, it is recommended that it not be cited at Articles for Deletion discussions for either keeping or deleting.". St★lwart ¹¹¹ 10:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Besides which, that essay considers the aircraft in question to be a "light aircraft", not an "airliner", and the crash in question doesn't meet either of the criteria specified for light aircraft. So even if we give the essay credence (we shouldn't) the subject still doesn't meet the criteria established there. St★lwart ¹¹¹ 10:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

It was the nom who used WP:AIRCRASH, which this passes, not me. And a 20 person aircraft is not "light aircraft". Smaller than a 747, yes, but not "light." A 2-seater would be "light." I might as well just say "Keep per WP:NOTNEWS, GNG, AIRCRASH" and that would be just as valid as the nom has given zero rational as to why it fails those guidelines.-- Oakshade ( talk) 20:40, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

That kind of misses the point. We shouldn't be using AIRCRASH at all. But given it has been mentioned, the essay uses gross weight of an aircraft (not number of seats) to differentiate between "light aircraft" and other aircraft. The aircraft in question falls well short of the gross weight specified and so is (according to the essay) a "light aircraft". They aren't my definitions and I think we're better off ignoring the essay and using WP:EVENT (which this also fails). St★lwart ¹¹¹ 20:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete or Redirect to MASwings#Incidents and Accidents, where this accident is already mentioned. Unfortunately, it does not meet WP:EVENT because practically all coverage of this crash stopped within two to three days and I see no evidence of any long term effects like a major NTSB investigation, changes to how the builder builds or maintains their aircraft, criminal charges or penalties against the airline, lawsuits from survivors, etc. Yes, two people died, but we do not have articles on every single aviation incident that resulted in a fatality, do we (like the recent jet fighter crash that killed five people in Libya or small plane crash in Ontario that killed one)? The Legendary Ranger ( talk) 00:48, 6 September 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:17, 6 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to MASwings#Incidents and Accidents per Legendary Ranger. This doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY criteria for a stand-alone article. Boleyn ( talk) 09:08, 6 September 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete or redirect as stated above. WP:AIRCRASH only sets forth the starting point for consideration and, as discussed above, this article does not even meet those guidelines.-- Rpclod ( talk) 13:24, 6 September 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, Natg 19 ( talk) 22:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Move to close - not sure why this was relisted... there is a single editor in favour of retention and four policy-based arguments for deletion/redirection. How much consensus do we need? St★lwart ¹¹¹ 01:26, 16 September 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) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:55, 20 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Holly Ryder

Holly Ryder (  | 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 PORNBIO and GNG. Cited book is not reliable since AuthorHouse is a print on demand publisher. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 02:09, 4 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete - No real signs of notability here. Titanium Dragon ( talk) 05:04, 4 September 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete as fails PORNBIO. – Davey2010 • (talk) 14:35, 4 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep per sources added and per comments below. – Davey2010 • (talk) 19:32, 14 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete Does not meet PORNBIO. Cowlibob ( talk) 16:07, 5 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Change to Keep as per the excellent source work found by the user below. Cowlibob ( talk) 14:42, 7 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Finnegas ( talk) 14:59, 6 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Strong keep and speedy close. Under her legal name, Lisa Marie Abato," "Ryder" was one of the best-known anti-porn activists in the U.S. Abato and her activities were covered in major media outlets like the Chicago Tribune [6] and the Los Angeles Times [7], commented on in The New York Times [8], discussed in the State Bar of California's official journal [9], and cited in social science books [10]. Newsbank search also turns up coverage in, inter alia, the San Francisco Examiner, the Cleveland Plain Dealer, the Washington Times, the Boston Herald, the Tampa Tribune, the Sacramento Bee and others. Not notable as a porn performer, but clears the GNG by a significant margin. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) ( talk) 22:53, 6 September 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - The citations you list stem from her 1994 California ballot initiative to ban pornography as a former pornographer. She's an anti porn-activist BLP1E. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 19:26, 14 September 2014 (UTC) reply
• Comment. If she is notable as anti-porn activist Lisa Marie Abato and not as porn star Holly Ryder as HW stated, then if kept, her article should probably be renamed to Lisa Marie Abato the same way that Shelley Lubben's article is named Shelley Lubben, not Roxy (pornographic actress). Rebecca1990 ( talk) 03:37, 8 September 2014 (UTC) reply

  Comment Completely agree with Rebecca. Rename the article if she is only deemed notable for activities using her real name. 209.90.140.72 ( talk) 03:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Support Rebecca1990's amendment of changing the article name after closure. Cowlibob ( talk) 17:16, 11 September 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, Natg 19 ( talk) 22:21, 15 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep and Move to Lisa Marie Abato (which currently redirects to Holly Ryder. She may not satisfy WP:PORNBIO, but she meets WP:GNG for her subsequent anti-porn activism, as indicated by sources cited above. I further agree with Rebecaa's suggestion that, as Ms. Abato is most notable for her anti-porn activism under her given name, the article should reside there.-- danntm ^T _C 22:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has demonstarted that as a anti porn activist she passes the WP:GNG. Agree with Rebecca1990's suggestion to change the name of the article to Lisa Marie Abato.
• Keep as the article has substantially changed since the original nomination, I do not believe the original claims by the nominator still hold. Yamaguchi先生 ( talk) 17:10, 19 September 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:13, 23 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Grover Furr

Grover Furr (  | 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 notable as mediaeval English professor (meets none of the criteria of WP:PROF in his day job), not notable for history hobby (minor coverage at best, as independent scholar meets none of the criteria for WP:PROF), 2012 media coverage would be WP:BLP1E. He seems to have fans amongst his political fellows, but I can't even find evidence of actual notability on this level. I asked over the past several weeks on the talk page for evidence of notability, a few trivial sources have been added but nothing that comes within a mile of WP:PROF or WP:GNG. - David Gerard ( talk) 19:11, 4 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Edit: Stalin apologetics and Holodomor denial are fringe positions; if Furr passed WP:FRINGE that would count as notability too - David Gerard ( talk) 18:54, 12 September 2014 (UTC) reply

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst: spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst: canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst: csm|username}} or {{subst: csp|username}}.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. David Gerard ( talk) 19:18, 4 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• The section on Grover Furr that you wrote on the 'Stalin Apologetics' page on RationalWiki was clearly written for aggressive and inflammatory purposes, which makes this deletion proposal highly suspicious. Not to mention the fact that you created that whole page only a month ago, suggesting that it's part of a larger effort taken on by you to silence alternative views on Joseph Stalin. Even if my accusations are not true, the arguments against Grover Furr's notability are severely flawed themselves. It is obvious that the proposal to delete this page is not for the sake of neutrality or credibility - it's for outright censorship. The entire question of whether this page should exist is on false grounds and should be discarded immediately. Unrequestedsillything 00:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)) reply
• Delete - as per above reasons. He has a few followers but the world of tankie-dom is mercifully small. Mrhalligan ( talk) 19:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Ignoring the derogatory term for the moment ... if there was even WP:GNG-level noteworthiness there rather than just "he appeared at a conference" or "someone notable reviewed his book" (notable reviewers review lots of non-notable books) ... I'm willing to be convinced, but even the fans couldn't produce - David Gerard ( talk) 19:59, 4 September 2014 (UTC) reply
    • By the metric laid out here, a sizable portion of the WP:PROF section would need to be gutted, as almost none meet this qualification level. As it is this particular article being targeted, it must be judged that the reason for deletion has nothing to do with the person, but to do with what his particular writing specialty is regarding. This looks to be nothing other than attempted censorship of a viewpoint not held by those asking for deletion, and nothing more. ( Downix ( talk) 22:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC)) reply
• Delete - per the nom. Given WP:BLP and the lack of meeting the criteria of WP:PROF, I see no reason Furr's article should remain. -- Bastique ^{☎ call me!} 01:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Literaturnaia Rossiia and Socialism and Democracy are both fine sources, as is the Chinese journal which reviewed Furr's work on Khrushchev. I would like to note that Gerard's comment, "even the fans couldn't produce [more sources]," is incorrect. There are more I could provide. Just focusing on critical commentary: David Horowitz sharply attacked Furr in one of his books and Michael Medved also devoted some attention to him on his radio show. In late 2012 comments he made about Stalin in the context of a Montclair State University debate went viral across various conservative websites, most notably FrontPage Magazine, The Daily Caller and PJ Media. The Star-Ledger ("the largest circulated newspaper in the U.S. state of New Jersey" according to the Wikipedia article) had critical articles on him as well. All this is notable. I would also like to note that Mrhalligan's remark that "the world of tankie-dom is mercifully small" suggests that something irrelevant towards adherence to Wikipedia guidelines has motivated his decision. -- Ismail ( talk) 13:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC) reply
  • The 2012 coverage is a really clear WP:BLP1E, particularly as he was literally set up by libertarians with cameras looking for a "Marxist professor" to pillory - arguably that wasn't even about Furr as an individual at all, and using such single-incident personal attacks with the intent of blackening someone's name in the media to drag someone into Wikipedia strikes me as an extremely bad precedent on BLP grounds (hence BLP1E being a thing). For the other points, please enumerate how he does on the nine criteria of WP:PROF - David Gerard ( talk) 11:52, 6 September 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Grover Furr is notable for more than one event. The fact that he has published multiple books over several years proves that, not to mention the occasions where his appearance in public were significant. - Unrequestedsillything ( talk • contribs) 02:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Deleting this article will reveal that Wikipedia can't tolerate alternative opinion on Stalin. The people who want this article to be deleted has anyone even read a single work of Prof. Furr? In his books, he hardly speaks; he simply presents what archives tell. First read his works and then say anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Comradesadi ( talk • contribs) 16:46, 8 September 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete - for reasons listed by others thus far. -- DracoStraybyrn ( talk) 21:54, 5 September 2014 (UTC)—  DracoStraybyrn ( Contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
  • My account is 6 years old - hardly "registering to participate in this conversation". I just haven't used it for edits frequently, but if that's the defining characteristic for whether my opinion counts, perhaps I should start. -- DracoStraybyrn ( talk) 22:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:28, 6 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:28, September 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:28, 6 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:28, 6 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Userfy - If there's consensus for deletion. I'd like to add this to my rehab collection. Chris Troutman ( talk) 19:30, 6 September 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep - An output of 12 books (even if some may be Russian and English version of the same) surely satisfies WP:ACADEMIC. It is notable that one of the books is published by Penguin, a general publisher, suggesting they think the work notable. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC) reply
• keep - we speak about censorship in the former Soviet Union, but what I see here is censorship at its best. Grover Furr's scholarship which is impeccable is not the issue being contested here, but the conclusions derived from his research. I may not like the fact the sky is blue,but it is. If Wiki removes this page it is proving the fact there is no freedom of speech in the US and that research and scholarship are irrelevant and that ideology is the only thing that matters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessicacoco2005 ( talk • Contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep - The arguments given for deletion are at best questionable. This looks to be little more than an attempt to censor an unpopular position. After seeing this page listed for deletion, I have taken the time to read two of Grover Furr's work, and in cross-referencing his positions against citable references, I have found nothing to disqualify him as a genuine historian, admittedly one with a viewpoint which is not generally popular. We do not delete unpopular historians - even discredited historians remain on Wikipedia. If Grover Furr is to be deleted on the grounds given, we would have to hold this standard up to others which they could not meet. Who would be the next writer to eliminate under this new standard? Edmund Morris? David McCullough? Joan Wallach Scott? No, like Grover Furr's position or no, deleting him is just censorship. ( Downix ( talk) 22:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC)) reply

Doing some checking, I discovered that this is not the first time someone has attempted to have this article deleted. It was agreed to keep, and that it met the qualifications based on WP:GNG as noted by Bgwhite on the talk page. Now we have David Gerard inventing this new WP:PROF standard in order to force the deletion. ( Downix ( talk) 21:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)) reply

• Keep - Deleting this article would be to uphold a double standard as there are countless other articles about academics whose notabilities are less that Furr. Along with others here, I also agree that the reasons and motives behind the arguments for deletion are questionable and lack merit. Deleting this article would indeed be nothing more than censorship. ( Unrequestedsillything ( Unrequestedsillything) 00:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC))    • Unrequestedsillything has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
• Keep - Handily meets WP:GNG with the following discussion of him in third-party sources:

• http://pjmedia.com/ronradosh/2012/11/13/academic-malpractice-the-case-of-grover-furr/
• http://theredphoenixapl.org/2014/01/12/review-of-grover-furrs-khrushchev-lied/
• The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics In America by David Horowitz
• http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/they-lied-nobody-died/
• http://www.themontclarion.org/archives/3747557
• In Denial: Historians, Communism and Espionage

I'm sure there are more sources, but this is sufficient. Binksternet ( talk) 01:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC) reply

In reply to David Gerard, I would just like to note that the claim he was "literally set up by libertarians with cameras looking for a 'Marxist professor' to pillory," assuming it's true, has no bearing on if an incident is notable or not. The fact is that Grover Furr was criticized by various conservative outlets (which are notable enough to have Wikipedia articles on them) for his comments on Stalin in the context of a debate. Even more importantly, however, he has been criticized in the past by David Horowitz (as noted above, and the reference used to be in the article until it was removed for being "biased" against Furr), and in the book In Denial (also noted above), which was written by professors John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr.

I would also like to comment on your original message, where you referred to Furr's writings on the USSR as a "history hobby." Furr has been writing about Soviet history for at least 28 years. He published an article in the Summer-Fall 1986 issue of Russian History/Histoire Russe, In that same issue there were articles by J. Arch Getty, Sheila Fitzpatrick, William Chase and other historians. The fact that he's published various books on this "hobby," and is clearly most notable for said "hobby," demonstrates that it probably isn't a hobby. No one would say Simon Leys had a "hobby" of writing about the Cultural Revolution just because he taught literature instead of history. -- Ismail ( talk) 06:13, 9 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep - Grover Furr is well known. The deletion is being demanded for suppressing a political view. Nq11 ( talk) 17:02, 9 September 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Politically motivated nonsense. Alyxr ( talk) 17:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Per reasons above. Given the fact that there is someone here registering an account with the sole purpose of calling for the deletion of Grover Furr from Wikipedia, this seems like an attempt at censorship of inconveniently accurate pro-Soviet studies and research. The reasons given for deletion are unconvincing at best. Cubansocialist ^{talk contribs} 18:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)—  Cubansocialist ( Contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

I am Hank Glocklin. I am no stranger to the controversy surrounding the writings of Professor Grover. I see here that his page is marked for deletion and I am surprised. Professor Furr's work is well researched. He cites sources and qualifies all of his statements. It seems that the only reason that his work is being targeted is because some editors at Wikipedia disagree with his findings. Let them prove otherwise. Until then, let his work alone. It is not the job of Wikipedia to sensor university professors. It is their job to confirm the accuracy of the subject. There is no reason to doubt the authentic and reliable statements made by Furr. Hank Glocklin

• Delete as per the initial reasons offered by David Gerard. I haven't found notability inside his field, let alone actual credibility inside the field of Soviet History. The irony is the accusations of this deletion being politically motivated are themselves, politically motivated. SomeLeviathan ( talk) 15:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC) SomeLeviathan ( Contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
• Note for anyone reviewing this AFD. There are a number of users on this talk page claiming the AFD is "politically motivated", etc. Please take the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever of political motivation in this AFD, and considering the nominator is an active Wikipedian, who has probably hundreds of AFD noms, and probably none of them related to Soviet apologist academics. Bastique ^{☎ call me!} 15:24, 11 September 2014 (UTC) reply
  • This is clearly politically motivated. Based on David Gerard's writings on RationalWiki, he is clearly trying to delete this page because he is opposed to Grover Furr's teachings. Also, regardless of whether it is politically motivated, other users here have already proven Furr's notability. Unrequestedsillything 04:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC) reply
    • I see this is being claimed, but not substantiated. Could you please substantiate it? This would make the case much stronger. Thanks! - David Gerard ( talk) 21:18, 12 September 2014 (UTC) reply
      • David Gerard introduced a metric of WP:PROF in order to rationalize deletion despite it having been determined in 2008 to qualify based on WP:GNG. This denotes a desire to delete by introducing a new metric despite a metric for retention already having been established 6 years ago. { Downix ( talk) 18:06, 14 September 2014 (UTC)} reply
    • It would seem that if David had a political motivation, he'd be more inclined for keeping the article, because Furr's article on Wikipedia would present an opportunity to make him a target. It's not like Wikipedia is missing articles on individuals who hold unpopular positions. Bastique ^{☎ call me!} 16:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC) reply
  • FWIW, it would be really nice to see anyone actually addressing WP:PROF, point by point. However sincerely-aggrieved, not addressing the notability guidelines doesn't advance the discussion - David Gerard ( talk) 15:30, 11 September 2014 (UTC) reply
    • As has already been said several times, even if Grover Furr does not qualify under WP:PROF, there are other forms of notability under which he has been PROVEN to qualify under, especially WP:GNG. I don't need to give my personal arguments for WP:GNG, because other here have already given more than enough evidence for this. Unrequestedsillything 04:51, 12 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Ask and you shall receive David Gerard. The following numbers correspond with this page

• 1. Furr hasn't done this to my knowledge. If someone is willing to provide information that he has made in impact in his field (Medieval English lit) then fine, but his historical work is outside of his field so imo his work on Stalin isn't worth considering for this criteria.
• 2. I can't find any awards he has been presented.
• 3. He isn't.
• 4. It hasn't. Similar to #1.
• 5. He doesn't. per his own site.
• 6. Again, he doesn't.
• 7. He hasn't made an impact outside of academia with his work inside his specialty.
• 8. He isn't.
• 9 He isn't. SomeLeviathan ( talk) 18:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC) reply

WP:PROF states that "it is possible for an academic not to be notable under the provisions of this guideline but to be notable in some other way under one of the other subject specific notability guidelines." Furr isn't a history professor so I don't see how WP:PROF applies. -- Ismail ( talk) 22:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC) reply

He isn't notable on GNG either. "Best seller in Russia" turned out on examination to be "author claimed it sold well in one section of one bookshop in Moscow". Assorted scattered reviews. Claims that turn out not to be supported by the references at all. This is what puffed-up BLPs look like - David Gerard ( talk) 07:09, 12 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Enough people know who Grover Furr is for him to be notable. Unrequestedsillything ( talk) 07:36, 12 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Also, David Gerard, I see that you wrote an entire section dedicated to bashing Grover Furr on RationalWiki. You took the time to slander him there. Is he somehow notable there, but not here? Unrequestedsillything ( talk) 08:47, 12 September 2014 (UTC) reply

It's utterly irrelevant to this deletion discussion, but since you ask - I wrote up something on Stalin apologists ( Holodomor denialists) and so forth) on RationalWiki, which has absolutely nothing to do with Wikipedia apart from also running on wiki software. I added Furr there since he's a favourite reference of Stalin apologists and Holodomor denialists. I looked him up and found a Wikipedia article. He looked ... really not very noteworthy at all. I asked on the talk page if there was more evidence of notability. Getting no answer, I added a PROD. Ismail removed it and insisted he'd make notability clear; I was glad to hear this. He then added stuff that doesn't actually evidence WP:PROF (either as an English professor or as an independent historian) nor GNG. So I put it up for deletion. Because he really isn't noteworthy, even as he has a few fans who share his views on Stalin and the things Stalin did. That's the story of this nomination.

So, rather than continuing to make personal attacks on me, I would ask you: please go through each of the nine criteria of WP:PROF and show how Prof Furr meets them, either as an English professor or an independent historian. This is not a vote, you need to bring arguments and refrain from personal attacks. One hundred "I like him and you are a political censor" with no arguments relevant to notability criteria ... equals no arguments relevant to notability criteria - David Gerard ( talk) 13:44, 12 September 2014 (UTC) reply

It's worth also noting that Stalin apologetics and Holodomor denialism is an extremely fringe position, as fringe as Holocaust denial (a similar denial of an extensively documented event widely considered an attempted genocide); Furr's views are well outside the mainstream of history and historiography (and he is not a professional historian). That he has fringe fans does not show that his views are actually notable in the wider world. If you could show notability under WP:FRINGE, that would count too. ("The notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents.")

I want to stress: I am willing to be convinced. I don't agree with Furr's views, but if Furr is actually notable then he should have an article. So convince me, with relevant arguments - David Gerard ( talk) 18:47, 12 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Unrequestedsillything, David Gerard is not David Gerald whom you so helpfully linked to, twice. Bastique ^{☎ call me!} 21:30, 12 September 2014 (UTC) reply

It is my proposal that David Gerard be removed from discussions on this topic, as he has continually invented new criteria to validate deletion, despite it having been acknowledged in discussions back in 2008 that this article qualifies under WP:GNG. This appears to be a personal vendetta of some sort, and not a legitimate attempt to edit Wikipedia. First he attempted to claim it does not qualify as WP:PROF and had that argument dismantled. Now he is attempting to claim it should be deleted due to not qualifying as WP:FRINGE, and has attempted to further muddle the issue by attempting to claim this is over academics. Grover Furr was found in 2008 to qualify under WP:GNG and that this is happening now 6 years later is ridiculous. This is not a place for personal vendettas, which is what this appears to be at this point. I reiterate, this is an attempt at censorship. ( Downix ( talk) 18:16, 14 September 2014 (UTC)) reply

No, I'm saying WP:FRINGE is another way to qualify. Any of the methods would qualify. Do you have a pointer to this 2008 discussion? (I've asked for pointers above to claimed previous discussions.) - David Gerard ( talk) 12:52, 15 September 2014 (UTC) reply

You already commented on it, referenced from the main article's talk page. ( Downix ( talk) 00:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)) reply

That's just a talk page discussion on whether he might pass or not. It's not sufficient to replace a proper AFD discussion, which is what this is. Specific arguments that cite the notability guidelines need to be brought right here to the discussion. I don't understand your apparent resistance to doing so - David Gerard ( talk) 10:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Nor I understand why you are continuing to push despite having met the qualifications for now three different categories of noteworthiness. ( Downix ( talk) 06:05, 18 September 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, slakr^{\  talk /} 22:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Relisting note — It should be noted that the vast majority of the keep votes above are invalid arguments. 1. Even if an AfD nomination was done with political intent—and suggesting it is usually a violation our assumption of good faith and personal attack policies unless it's clear and obvious—if the article fails on its merits of meeting our other content guidelines and policies, the article gets axed. 2. Whether or not the arguments made by the subject within their body of work have merit is irrelevant to this discussion. The guideline-and-policy-based concern raised by the nominator is that the subject fails to meet the guidelines for the notability of academics (WP:PROF) and that the existing coverage that would have gone toward meeting WP:PROF is instead also a violation of our one-event notability of a living person (and/or presumably one-event notability of any biography). Arguments going forth should address those concerns (or add policy-and-guideline-based concerns/rebuttals to them), otherwise they will be summarily ignored by the closing admin. -- slakr^{\  talk /} 22:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC) reply
  • I'll note that demonstrating (not merely blankly asserting) notability under WP:GNG or WP:FRINGE, for example, would also pass notability - not all of these, but any of these - David Gerard ( talk) 09:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Save the article was not added for WP:PROF nor WP:FRINGE but on WP:GNG. The continuing attempt to force deletion based on a non-relevant argument still smells of censorship. Since WP:FRINGE is based on pseutoscientific analysis, and Furr's work is based instead on documented reference, it would still be an attempt at censorship by dismissing work done on those grounds. The result is the same, an attempt at censorship over an unpopular opinion. - ( Downix ( talk) 00:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)) reply
      • Holodomor denial is in no manner mainstream. But, for example, we have an article on David Irving despite the similar fringeness of his opinions. You need to show noteworthiness - David Gerard ( talk) 10:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC) reply
        • Since Furr is not part of Holodomor denial that I have read so far (only having read two of his books so far), it appears to be yet another false narrative being introduced in order to further muddy the water. You are just arbitrarily dismissing any references desired in an attempt to delete a page as a form of censorship. ( Downix ( talk) 06:05, 18 September 2014 (UTC)) reply
          • A trivial Google search for "grover furr" "holodomor" brings up [11] (Furr in his own words) and [12] (a review of Furr's particular work most celebrated by fans) - David Gerard ( talk) 11:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC) reply
        • Note, Furr does qualify per Wikipedia:Notability. We can verify that yes, he has written several books. Yes, we can verify that these books will not vanish overnight. Yes, we can verify that these books have been cited by multiple secondary sources. Yes, we can verify that he has been criticized by others. Now, per Notability, it should have been argued first that perhaps Furr should have been merged in with another wikipedia article before the call to delete. That the entire notability and call for deletion process was bypassed in this articles case, I reiterate that David is not acting in a good faith attempt to maintain the quality standards of wikipedia, and instead this effort is just a form of censorship of an unpopular viewpoint. ( Downix ( talk) 06:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC)) reply
• Delete Dr. Furr ultimately lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources showing he is a notable academic. Merely because he was once somewhat remarked upon does not mean he is now notable.-- danntm ^T _C 22:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ( Downix ( talk) 06:28, 18 September 2014 (UTC)) reply

• Keep, per Binksternet. GNG is met. Darmokand ( talk) 07:23, 20 September 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep I don't know that this guy is notable as an academic, but when multiple reliable sources are talking about someone's political views -- even to call them ridiculous (as I personally believe that they are, not that it matters) -- then the guy is probably notable generally. TheOther Bob 03:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep Coming to this late in the day, it seems that rather than argue on PROF it should be considered solely under GNG, rather in the way that a page exists on, say, David Irving. Individuals who attract impassioned coverage – pro and anti – should be on Wikipedia, by definition, and we exist to represent what is out there, so calling this FRINGE seems to miss the cultural and historical context/value, whatever our personal viewpoints may be. Obviously, careful editing and monitoring become even more important on such pages, but better to see discussions and consensus achieved on Wikipedia than risk claims of censorship and watch information grow off Wikipedia. Libby norman ( talk) 00:03, 23 September 2014 (UTC) reply
• Comment - I know Grover Furr a bit from joint membership in a historical society. He holds fringe views in the field of Soviet history, views which have made him the target of several conservative commentators in the same field. I don't think that by any normal measure of notability Mr. Furr meets GNG outside of his making fringe views and being criticized for fringe views. I do not think he meets any Special Notability low bar for academics. Carrite ( talk) 17:05, 23 September 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. None of the arguments for keeping this article contain sufficient evidence that the subject meets Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion outlined in Wikipedia:Notability (academics) and Wikipedia:Notability (people). -- Ed ( Edgar181) 14:41, 23 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Syed Imtiaz Ali Naqvi

Syed Imtiaz Ali Naqvi (  | 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 subject's research has not made significant impact in its scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. The subject neither passes Wikipedia:Notability (academics) nor Wikipedia:Notability (people). It should be deleted. Justice007 ( talk) 06:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC) reply

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst: spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst: canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst: csm|username}} or {{subst: csp|username}}.

There is no valid reason for deletion of this page, because the subject's research contributions are well accepted and rewarded by reputed national and international organizations, all the relevant references are already incorporated. Rida Fatima12 — Preceding undated comment added 10:12, 3 September 2014 (UTC) — Rida Fatima12 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

• Comment Search for "Syed Imtiaz Ali" ophthalmology, the result is more precise. -- Vejvančický ( talk / contribs) 09:19, 3 September 2014 (UTC) reply
  • google hits dont mean a thing what matters are reliably published third party sources which [13] speak for themselves. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:59, 6 September 2014 (UTC) reply
• Comment The subject Professor meets the Wikipedia:Notability (academics) and Wikipedia:Notability (people) criteria as substantiated by reliable sources, some of which are stated here: 1. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award at international level (APAO Award for prevention of blindness in asia pacific region 2010), reference is cited in the article. 2. The person is the Fellow of "College of Physicians and Surgeons Pakistan", which is a internationally prestigious academic institution, reference is cited in the article. 3. The subject professor has held the Chair of "Dean Faculty of Surgery and Allied sciences" from 2009 to 2012, "Director Academics" in 2013 and currently holding the chair of Professor of Ophthalmology at SMBB Medical University Larkana. 4. The subject's research has made significant impact in the field of Ophthalmology. His research articles are published in well recognized Ophthalmic Journals, references are cited in the article. Meeting only one criterion is sufficient according to Wikipedia:Notability (academics) to retain this article, however the subject meets most of the criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ophthalmic tutor ( talk • contribs) 15:57, 3 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• As the sources that are cited and provided do not establish the notabilty, in the sources, only name of the subject is mentioned, there is no significant article written by independent third party. Recently added source to support award, seems no highly prestigious academic award?. Justice007 ( talk) 16:08, 3 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Subject's name shows the proof of the claims made in the article. The award mentioned in the article is highly prestigious, and internationally recognized, the Asia pacific academy of Ophthalmology has more than 13 member countries including Japan and China. The criticism by Justice007 is totally injustice and biased. I think the discussion is fairly clear and should be concluded with keeping this article. Shahnawaz Mugheri 16:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC) — Shahnawaz Mugheri ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

• CommentProfessor Syed Imtiaz Ali Naqvi is a noble person and a well known scholar of Pakistan, In Feb 2014 I traveled only to hear and learn from him and was satisfied with his teachings, the topic which I learned from him was "Fundoscopic Examination in patients with chronic hypertension” ^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justice005 ( talk • contribs) 06:18, 4 September 2014 (UTC) — Justice005 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

• Comment I saw Professor Syed Imtiaz Ali Naqvi's some excellent researches in the form of photographs on Wikipedia some time ago but as I have opened this page they are no more available. Now we have to look for other sources to benefit from his innovations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justice005 ( talk • contribs)
• Comment Subject of the article fulfills the Wikipedia criteria of notability. Don't know why this talk has took so long to conclude?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dur e Najaf Shujaat ( talk • contribs) 14:03, 5 September 2014 (UTC) — Dur e Najaf Shujaat ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
• Comment I am feeling honoured to comment on Professor Syed Imtiaz ali Naqvi Esq. He is a well known expert of eye diseases nationally and internationally. I know him from the comments of hundreds of people from Pakistan and other countries who met him, got treatment from him and attended his lectures and scientific meetings. I can only say that Wikipedia is fortunate to contain his name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aliraza91056 ( talk • contribs) 15:12, 5 September 2014 (UTC) — Aliraza91056 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
• comment when this article is deleted for lack of notability despite the swarm of self admitted COI spi editors, there should be made a general sweep of articles looking for spam references to this guys work that they have been plugging into a gazzillion eye related articles. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC) reply
• comment Please look at the request on the page by Wikipedia lovers that citations may be added instead of URLs as URLs may rot. I am helping Wikipedia and responding to the request. Please use sensible language thanks, and by the way it was your request too which I have acknowledged and also thanked you already if you find time to see the history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justice005 ( talk • contribs) 06:36, 6 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Speedily Delete it Searching on internet I found there's no one with this name known. Even if he's a known personality this article should deleted because of really very poor editing and images are not licensed and references are not actually showing the quality which Wikipedia stands for. I think this article shows no importance to be on wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashutosh4422 ( talk • contribs) 12:04, 5 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• The article is about a researcher and an author of a book on Ophthalmology, he is a notable academician and has held many chairs in various institutions. Not being able to find him on internet is no logical reason to delete this article. This article will help visitors on Wikipedia to benefit from the researches and inventions of the subject, which they are unable to find on other places. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dur e Najaf Shujaat ( talk • contribs) 13:45, 5 September 2014 (UTC) — Dur e Najaf Shujaat ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
• delete fails WP:GNG and WP:ACADEMIC and is simply part of a massive promotional campaign. all of the cites are primary sources, no third party notice and none of the items cited is inherently notable. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:59, 6 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:56, 6 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:56, 6 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:56, 6 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• keep this article as notability and importance is clearly proved by editors, I will add one suggestion to improve this article by changing the Display title from Syed Imtiaz Ali Naqvi to Syed Imtiaz Ali Shah. Facilitator 14 ( talk) 17:16, 12 September 2014 (UTC) — Facilitator 14 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
  • please point out what "proof" has been provided. all of the sources are primary and none of the primary sources establish an award or whatnot that by itself establishes notability. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:38, 12 September 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete despite the apparent crowdsourcing of support here, I see nothing in the sources that suggests the notability standard has been reached - QuiteUnusual ( talk) 13:28, 15 September 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, slakr^{\  talk /} 22:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Retain This article in itself is a significant source of knowledge from southeast Asia, I have searched the citations, primary and secondary sources incorporated in this article,these are enough and reliable. In my opinion there is no need for further discussion, the article should be retained and kept open for further improvement, if possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samson wright ( talk • contribs) 12:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep The awards, references and sources cited on this page are reliable and establish Notability criteria of Wikipedia, therefore the tags of deletion consideration may be removed. During my visit of subcontinent in 2007 , I participated in the ceremony in which The Professor was decorated with top most Pakistani award ^[1] Hamilton bailay ( talk) 13:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC) reply

none of the "awards" nor even the organizations that give them are notable and so you are incorrect in asserting that they establish notability. the references are all to primary sources that have an affiliation with the subject and therefore are of zero value in establishing notablity. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:30, 20 September 2014 (UTC) reply

There is no any single reliable source that covers the subject's research significantly impacting in its scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as described in wiki rules. Just mentioning the subject's name does not establish the notability. It seems to me there is being imposed voting pratice rather consensus. Justice007 ( talk) 04:35, 21 September 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) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 00:16, 22 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Tejaswi Madivada

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

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

Too soon? She just started films recently. Lets wait a while. I think she could become a name someday. Wgolf ( talk) 21:41, 15 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC) reply

WP:INDAFD Tejaswi Madivada

• Keep - Meets WP:NACTOR and general notable guidelines. — CutestPenguin ^Hangout 16:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Cutest Penguin- Found quite a few sources [14] [15] [16], Passes GNG & NACTOR. – Davey2010 • (talk) 18:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC) reply
• Comment-Okay well she has had a lot of roles in her first year-I think the thing that threw me off was her years active. Wgolf ( talk) 20:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC) reply
• KeepAs per Cutest Penguin.Passes WP:NACTOR. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 13:49, 21 September 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; withdrawn by nominator ( non-admin close). St★lwart ¹¹¹ 01:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC) reply

AKA (rapper)

AKA (rapper) (  | 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:NMUSIC, non-notable musician. Unreliable sources JMHamo ( talk) 21:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• NOMINATION WITHDRAWN JMHamo ( talk) 22:22, 15 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Nominating this article for deletion is a waste of time. The subject has received too many awards and gotten too many coverage in reliable sources. Advice to the nominator: Please make sure you do a Google search before nominating an article for deletion. Here are reliable sources: Rolling Stone, Times Live, City Press, Clutch Magazine, IOL, IOL, allAfrica.com, MTV IGGY, XXL Magazine. He has been nominated for the Channel O Music Video Awards, MTV Africa Music Awards, South African Music Awards and SA Hip Hop Awards, among others. Versace1608 (Talk) 22:17, 15 September 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) – Davey2010 • (talk) 22:37, 21 September 2014 (UTC) reply

The Hill (Boulder)

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

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

This page is the definition of WP:OR and it is unlikely that any sources can be found that would change that. CombatWombat42 ( talk) 21:21, 15 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep - I don't know how the nom jumped to such a brash conclusion when it only took a second or two googling to find sources supporting a lot of what's in the article, not to mention this neighborhood's notability. [17] [18] [19] Was WP:BEFORE not followed? Even the Boulder Convention and Visitor's Bureau has a page dedicated to it. [20] I'd be open for this to be moved to its official name, University Hill (Boulder) (" University Hill" is a disamb page). -- Oakshade ( talk) 03:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:16, 16 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Should probably be moved to University Hill (Boulder, Colorado) or to Hill District (Boulder Colorado). But see Hill District neighborhood listing, and see this coverage of the University Hill riot of 1997. It's a notorious / notable area! -- do ncr am 22:13, 16 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep - Noms should not speculate about sources, they need to do a search WP:BEFORE nominating. Sources are readily available. WP:OR is not a valid reason to delete. ~ KvnG 13:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep Sources are available contrary to nominators statement. Coffeepusher ( talk) 18:17, 20 September 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. Hut 8.5 21:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Seth Rembold

Seth Rembold (  | 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 notable. Does not meet criteria in WP:BIO ubiquity ( talk) 21:04, 15 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Speedy Delete as the article "does not indicate why its subject is important or significant". Stesmo ( talk) 21:07, 15 September 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) Natg 19 ( talk) 17:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Ganga puja

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

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

No assertion of notability Kevin McE ( talk) 20:41, 15 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep Was WP:BEFORE done? [21], [22], [23], [24] -- NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:52, 15 September 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep Looks notable based on the above-cited sources. Obviously, article needs to be expanded and sourced, but it ought to be salvaged, not sunk. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 21:03, 15 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:13, 16 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:13, 16 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:13, 16 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep: Good job User:Nvvchar. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { T/ C} 09:59, 16 September 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep Poor nomination. I suggest a speedy withdraw @ Kevin McE: to save yourself from further embarrassment.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC) reply
• Strong Keep - The article meets the general notability guidelines. — CutestPenguin ^Hangout 16:46, 16 September 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:13, 23 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Indroneel Mukherjee (Fashion Designer)

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

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

Don't see any notability really, he has a website but it looks like basically someone who is just doing fashion and nothing else. Wgolf ( talk) 20:21, 15 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:11, 16 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:11, 16 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:11, 16 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• DELETE. Nothing has changed one bit since Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indroneel Mukherjee happened. This is a recreation of a deleted article and I notice that the same creator also recreated the previously deleted article Fame Fashion and Creative Excellence (FFACE). Mabalu ( talk) 09:16, 16 September 2014 (UTC) reply

In fact, I've spotted that the creator also tried to create this page (twice!) at Indroneel Mukherjee (IM) too - both were speedy-deleted. Can we salt? Mabalu ( talk) 09:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• KEEP Significant changes has been made in the article and notable reference has been added such as The Telegraph review and Washington Bangla report on Indroneel Mukkherjee awesomeme111 18:49, 16 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awesomeme111 ( talk • contribs)

The Telegraph "review" is simply a mention in a list of half a dozen designers who participated in one show. The Banglal article is written by the subject. Neither source is remotely acceptable as evidence of notability. Mabalu ( talk) 21:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Agreed Mabalu on the counters you have provided. What do you think on the other two references on the article? I will try searching for more references to make it stronger for a wiki biography. awesomeme111 12:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awesomeme111 ( talk • contribs) reply

Since you asked: Sources in article: 1) - Mention in list of other designers (as with the Telegraph "review"). The second source simply states he was one of the judges and gives a couple tiny quotes. Really next to nothing to evidence his notability. I mean, we can see that he exists but absolutely no evidence that he is notable. Mabalu ( talk) 12:40, 17 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete as per nom. — CutestPenguin ^Hangout 16:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete as not notable BlueSalix ( talk) 05:03, 20 September 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) Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 21:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Ivan Rabb

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

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

Has yet to play college or pro basketball, too soon. Though I do admit this will make a good page someday. Wgolf ( talk) 20:17, 15 September 2014 (UTC) Withdrawn Wgolf ( talk) 02:37, 18 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Comment - The specific notability guideline for high school athletes is WP:NHSPHSATH; everyone is reminded that this is one of the rare specific notability guidelines which is intended to supersede the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, and WP:NHSPHSATH is a tougher standard than GNG because of the usually local and often ephemeral nature of high school sports reputations. WP:NHSPHSATH specifically requires "substantial and prolonged coverage that is (1) independent of the subject and (2) clearly goes beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage. Note that the first clause would exclude all school papers and school websites that cover their sports teams and other teams they compete against. The second clause excludes the majority of local coverage in both news sources and sports specific publications. It especially excludes using game play summaries, statistical results, or routine interviews as sources to establish notability." Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 03:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• -Well thing is you never know what could happen once they are done with high school, he might go continue on or as far as we know he could become a doctor instead! It just seems to fall too soon. Now I'm not sure how to handle this to be honest. Wgolf ( talk) 03:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• That's easy, Wgolf. Either the subject satisfies the requirements of WP:NHSPHSATH or he doesn't. If this article get deleted, and this kid is as good as some folks seem to think, the article will get re-created in a year or two. And there's no reason why the article can't be userfied and transferred to user space in the interim. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 04:25, 16 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Keeping in mind what Dirtlawyer has explained, a Google search doesn't show the substantial, independent coverage for a prolonged period of time for Ivan Rabb. There are a lot of gHits on him, yes, but those fall under WP:ROUTINE or are unreliable, bloggy-type fanboy/recruiting websites. Jrcla2 ( talk) 12:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC) Nominator withdrew after more refs added; striking my vote. Jrcla2 ( talk) 12:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Addendum – WP:TOOSOON applies here I believe. Jrcla2 ( talk) 12:45, 16 September 2014 (UTC) reply
• Weak Keep - Sorting through the recruiting sites and blogs, I do find enough National coverage about Rabb to (barely) meet the HS notability guideline: examples here and here and here. He is a very top recruit and those guys can go either way, but to me he makes it. I wouldn't cry if this were deleted, however and the article clearly needs sources. Rikster2 ( talk) 18:59, 16 September 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep - My thoughts echo those of Rikster2 immediately above. I believe that the demanding standard of WP:NHSPHSATH is satisfied by the quality and depth of the national coverage regarding the subject. I caution everyone participating in this AfD discussion who may see this as an endorsement of articles for every high school athlete who is a big-time college recruit; it's not. Rabb seems to have received strong coverage in the national media so far, and very few other college recruits are going to receive comparable coverage -- especially when Scout.com, Rivals.com, and the like are excluded for determining notability. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 20:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Comment-Well I would like some sources first to be honest though. Wgolf ( talk) 22:25, 16 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Wgolf, please see the three source linked in Rikster's comment above. Those are pretty solid. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 22:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC) reply

-Meant in the article sorry not in here. And the reason why I put this as a AFD was with a case of another article by the same editor where he was deleting the prod so I had to take the next step and did it here as well. (Which he deleted the AFD as well) Wgolf ( talk) 22:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC) reply

When I get time I will put the three I found in. Life's just been hectic lately, but the point is sources do exist. Rikster2 ( talk) 18:40, 17 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Sources Added Rikster2 ( talk) 01:52, 18 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Withdrawn-thanks for the refs he seems notable enough for me, you can understand though where I'm coming from that HS players are iffy to include or not. Wgolf ( talk) 02:37, 18 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Very iffy, Wgolf. It was a good RfA to have; the notability standard for high school athletes is one that is satisfied very rarely. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 02:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Comment @ Jrcla2: the nom has been withdrawn due to updated references - are you willing to change your vote to !keep so this can be speedy closed? Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 00:24, 22 September 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 KEEP. Nominator has withdrawn and there are no opinions for delete. In speaking toward other's thoughts toward the nom's lack of WP:BEFORE, I will suggest he study WP:NRVE and caution him that this was not a policy violation, that issues were addressable, and WP:DEL suggests that under WP:PRESERVE, other avenues of correction should be explored. Care and understanding of existing community standards and practices must be taken into account before any nomination. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Miguel Laurencena

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

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

No assertion of notability. Kevin McE ( talk) 20:12, 15 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Comment. The expand tag on this stub indicates that content can be translated from corresponding Spanish language article. The es.Wikipedia article says that the subject was governor of a province in Argentina. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC) reply
• Additional comment. While I can't assess Spanish language sources, my search for sources in English found hits at newspapers.com which apparently confirm that Laurencena was governor of Entre Rios Province, Argentina in the early 20th century passing WP:POLITICIAN. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:59, 16 September 2014 (UTC) reply

The article need to include such assertions if it is to merit inclusion. Kevin McE ( talk) 10:52, 16 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Speedy keep @ Kevin McE: You appear to have a poor understanding of the concept of notability. A notable subject, regardless if one line or 150kb, will always be notable. Yes, the article should have had some content but the solution is to expand, not delete. AFD isn't an expand demand service. That it didn't occur to you that somebody who governed a state of a big country might be notable and the fact that you didn't check to see the wealth of sources is most alarming. If this continues I'll be proposing that you're banned from taking articles to AFD as you're not bothering to assess notability properly beyond short articles.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC) reply

I'm not attempting to assess notability: I don't have to. An article can be speedily deleted if it " does not indicate why its subject is important or significant". I have chosen AfD rather than SD, but while an article remains in a state that would not keep it immune from SD criteria, I cannot see how it can survive AfD (see WP:DEL-REASON #1. Kevin McE ( talk) 14:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC) reply

@ Kevin McE: If you're going to be involved with AFDs you really have to abide by WP:BEFORE, especially the D section. 85% of our articles are stubs or lacking. The solution in most cases is to expand. If you've generally tried looking in google book/highbeam/newspaper.com etc and can't find anything then when you AFD at least you can claim that you don't think it's notable. Short article most of the time doesn't mean it's not notable, it just means it hasn't been researched properly.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:30, 16 September 2014 (UTC) reply

I did not nominate on the basis of shortness, I did so on the basis of failing WP:A7. If you don't think that provides a valid reason for deletion, campaign to have it removed. Kevin McE ( talk) 16:49, 16 September 2014 (UTC) reply

It didn't fail WP:A7. For a start it was categorized as Governors of Entre Ríos Province which should immediately twig that it might be notable, not to mention that it had a very constructive "Expand Spanish wikipedia article" tag at the top with clear instructions to translate it. Wikipedia is one big project. The intention of the article creator was to get the article translated from Spanish wikipedia, an article which you couldn't possibly think wasn't notable.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Speedy keep as per the first hit in googling the man: this English language gbook ref which supports the claim that he was governor and tells us a lot more about his public and personal life. It would be easy enough to add all of it... it's PD. -- Rosiestep ( talk) 13:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Withdraw Now that it does not fall foul of speedy deletion criteria, the article properly merits inclusion. Kevin McE ( talk) 14:21, 16 September 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 02:40, 23 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Dick Raaymakers

Dick Raaymakers (  | 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 Dutch composer. The BLP template does not apply as this person passed away in 2013. Silverfish8088 ( talk) 19:33, 15 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Strong keep One of the true pioneers of electronic music. He got some major awards, an honorary doctorate at Leiden University and was the subject of a book and a number of exhibitions and festivals - this is already in the article. References could be improved, but he is definitely notable. I removed the BLP template that Silverfish8088 inappropriately inserted a few days ago ( diff). ( talk) 23:02, 15 September 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Please sign your name next to your comments, that would be helpful. If you can provide reliable third party sources to corroborate your claims, please do! This is a basic requirement for content here. Thanks, Silverfish8088 ( talk) 23:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC) reply
    • My name is right next to my comments, I am not quite sure what you mean by that comment. But have a look at the article itself - here are some reliable sources. The article quotes the following monograph on him: Mulder, Arjen; Brouwer, Joke (2008). Dick Raaymakers: a monograph. V2_ publishing. ISBN  978-90-5662-600-6.. Then there is the honorary doctorate ( [25]) - the university describes him as 'having played a key role in the early stages of Dutch electromic music.(...) He made The Hague into one of the most important centers in the world in electro-acoustic music'. Then there are the awards: Matthijs Vermeulen Award, Witteveen+Bos Award. Here's a reference for the festival: [26]. I agree that the article could be improved with inline refs, but that is not ground for deletion. Please, follow WP:BEFORE when nominating an article for deletion. That is a basic requirement here. ( talk) 00:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment: I updated the article: added a number sources dealing with him, referenced the awards. I hope that these address your concerns, Silverfish8088, Lemnaminor ( talk) 09:36, 19 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep, following some much-needed improvements by User:Lemnaminor. PWilkinson ( talk) 17:50, 20 September 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep after some good work by User:Lemnaminor. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 21:55, 22 September 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Ziyaddin Magerramov

Ziyaddin Magerramov (  | 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:PROF. On his bio, first ref at http://www.dia.edu.az/ZIYEDDIN_M.php. Only an associate professor. Google Scholar turns up single entry. Simply not notable. scope_creep talk 18:40, 23 August 2014 (UTC) reply

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:14, 24 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep—Tenured (aka "associate") professor with a significant publication record that is not captured in google's various products. azWP does a much better job of listing his publications. Given that list, I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt for notability. Lesser Cartographies ( talk) 04:32, 29 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Comment I don't think associate professors are notable, only full strength professors. That is second best and not encyclopedia. He also works in a Public Administration academy, seemingly not a full university. He was born in mid 1940's, but still not done his habilitation, or seemed too. I don't get the notablity vibe. scope_creep talk 19:17 30 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Davey2010 • (talk) 17:32, 31 August 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, Natg 19 ( talk) 07:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete'. A long list of minor accomplishments, none seemingly rising to the level of notability, with almost no sources. No clear evidence of passing WP:GNG or WP:PROF. — David Eppstein ( talk) 18:04, 12 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Comment It looks to me as if the article has been translated from Azerbaijani, without the translator realising that what quite possibly come across as fairly obvious assertions of notability in Azerbaijan are almost meaningless to an audience from outside the old Soviet bloc. The subject's career up to 1990 was fairly obviously, whatever the official job titles, within the Communist Party's ideological apparatus - and, reading between the lines, it seems to have continued within the post-Soviet Azerbaijani equivalent. His academic position, within the successor of the Azerbaijani Communist Party's main internal training institution, is probably important to his current activities but its seniority (or lack of it) probably isn't - his "scientific" (in the sense of the German Wissenschaft) writings seem to be on the history and culture of Azerbaijan, and I would guess that his current overt role is as a public intellectual, with much of the writing being aimed generally at educated readers rather than specifically at academic ones, and with many of those readers assuming that it reflects government views. As such, he may quite likely be notable within Azerbaijan - but this can probably only be established from sources in Azerbaijani. PWilkinson ( talk) 10:28, 13 September 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, Ks0stm ^{( T• C• G• E)} 18:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete - I'm not convinced he was more than a middle-level Apparatchik for propaganda. Bearian ( talk) 14:41, 23 September 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) – Davey2010 • (talk) 22:38, 21 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Tarik Shah

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

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

Shah does not pass the notability guidelines for musicians. His conviction on criminal charges also are not covered in an indepth enough way to justify having an article on him. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:54, 23 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ascii002 Talk Contribs 05:30, 23 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ascii002 Talk Contribs 05:30, 23 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:07, 23 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:07, 23 August 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) 18:18, 31 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Weak keep There seems to be barely enough recent coverage of his Al Qaeda ties (e.g. here) to meet WP:CRIMINAL (if not WP:MUSICIAN). See also: [27] and [28] Jinkinson talk to me 20:55, 31 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep recent coverage, meets WP:CRIMINAL.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 19:41, 6 September 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, Natg 19 ( talk) 07:34, 8 September 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, Ks0stm ^{( T• C• G• E)} 18:38, 15 September 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) Natg 19 ( talk) 17:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Kindred Healthcare

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

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

Flagged as an advert since February 2014, this article relies on regurgitated press releases and PR pieces as references. It has a massive set of COI disclosures on the talk page. Fiddle Faddle 12:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep. If the article has problems, then it needs work, not deletion. Everyking ( talk) 13:29, 8 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:32, 8 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:32, 8 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Agreed with Everyking, and it's a Fortune 500 company (that fact alone means it's a notable company). Improve it. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 13:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep  Reading five words into the article shows that this topic is listed on the NYSE.  With some quick mousing over the references, I found two articles from bizjournals and one from money.cnn.com.  Skimming the article, I couldn't verify that this is an advertisement.  The only thing I noticed is that most of the BLP info needs to have Template:CN tags added.  Unscintillating ( talk) 00:30, 9 September 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, Ks0stm ^{( T• C• G• E)} 18:37, 15 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep Rarely is a listed corporation is not-notable.-- danntm ^T _C 23:17, 15 September 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) – Davey2010 • (talk) 22:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Billy Hill and the Hillbillies

Billy Hill and the Hillbillies (  | 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 appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Previous AfD closed as no consensus mainly due to poor participation. Boleyn ( talk) 13:06, 8 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ascii002 Talk Contribs GuestBook 13:32, 8 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Ascii002 Talk Contribs GuestBook 13:32, 8 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete fails WP:BAND. Kindzmarauli ( talk) 13:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep. I have added five sources to the article; these appear to be enough to show that the band meets WP:GNG and WP:BAND #1.  Gongshow    talk 23:45, 9 September 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, Ks0stm ^{( T• C• G• E)} 18:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Weak Keep per the sources added by Gongshow, although the sources, which are mostly about the demise of the band, verge on WP:BLP1E. -- Ahecht ( TALK
  PAGE) 21:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep; under WP:MUSICBIO it says "Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles." One of the members is Evan Marshall who has been a guest musician of more than two notable ensembles (the Houston Symphony, Phoenix Symphony, and Buffalo Philharmonic). Only one member is of that prominence, but it is enough for me. Jacqke ( talk) 01:29, 18 September 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.) This debate has gone on long enough. I've been waiting for someone to close it. And I don't care if I am involved in the discussion that's just a guideline. In closing the debate, I haven't been biased and I waited until the full week was over and until others had given their opinions.-- Hipposcrashed ( talk) 02:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Rosalind Cubitt (  | 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: notability is not inherited. TheLongTone ( talk) 23:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:42, 3 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete I couldn't find any reason for her to be notable on her own, other than her family relationships. -- Gccwang ( talk) 04:05, 6 September 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, Ks0stm ^{( T• C• G• E)} 17:34, 8 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep Where else would we put her information?-- Hipposcrashed ( talk) 13:06, 12 September 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep If you can create an article for Carole Middleton, as the mother of a future queen consort, you can create an article for Rosalind Cubitt, as the mother of another future queen consort, who is even much higher than Carole middleton's daughter. Also some work has been added, which she got heavily involved in, so she's not just here because of family members. ( Monkelese ( talk) 16:19, 12 September 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep In my oppinion this article should be kept. This article has been viewed 1791 times since it's creation (18 June 2014). People are interested in family members of Queens and future Queens. There are many articles about other mothers of Queens or future Queens: e.g. Cecilia Bowes-Lyon, Countess of Strathmore and Kinghorne, Frances Shand Kydd, Carole Middleton, Alice Sommerlath, Anna Maria Komorowska, Susan Moody. ( 19XAVO90 ( talk) 13:31, 17 September 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, Ks0stm ^{( T• C• G• E)} 18:34, 15 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep Notability may not be inherited, but as an ancestor, mother even, of the next queen consort her notability is assured - it has been earned by her descendent. Chienlit ( talk) 19:54, 17 September 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. Concensus indicates that the site fails to show the required notability according to independent reliable sources. Note that the accounts of four of the keep !votes have only a single edit, all to this article, which may indicate off-wiki canvassing or sock puppetry.  Philg88 ^{♦ talk} 13:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC) reply

ChnLove

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

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

Article that keeps on getting its speedy deleted, it is a advertisement. And also its a strange web site for a bizarre site it seems (don't want to click on the links). Also seems to have a sock puppet problem as 2 users keep on deleting it. Wgolf ( talk) 17:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC) reply

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst: spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst: canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst: csm|username}} or {{subst: csp|username}}.

• Dear Wgolf, thanks for the time reviewing the article I created and Sorry for deleting the speedy deletion notice mistakenly. I was not familiar with the wikipedia policy at that time. ChnLove page may have some issues and hope you can help with its improvement and editting. Thanks. Cracy111 ( talk) 10:01, 18 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep - Respectfully disagree with nomination for deletion. As stated in WP:ADMASQ, "a differentiation should be made between spam articles and legitimate articles about commercial entities." This article is not Advertising because it is not "used to encourage, persuade, or manipulate an audience...to take or continue to take some action." The article contains no calls to action or attempts to persuade the reader that the company is better or worse than its competitors. The article is written from a neutral point of view, and serves as a summarized information culled from reliable source. This company is equally as significant as  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Match.com , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matchmaker.com ,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemistry.com or many other online dating site lists. This page needs development rather than deletion. StephyGret ( talk) 02:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC)— StephyGret ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

• Keep - To be honest, I don't know anything about this website ( I saw an ad on Google and then i came here to check for more details), in my opinion, the article is helpful to me(at least now i know what it is). And i don't think it's written like an advertisement. So I think it's ok to keep it here. Hanbrito33 ( talk) 09:23, 19 September 2014 (UTC)— Hanbrito33 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

• I don’t think this page of ChnLove should be deleted for the following reasons:

1.This page is not for promotion because it only illustrates the basic information about this website (Chnlove) in an objective manner instead of giving the exaggeration of the achievements of a company. It has verifiable resources. Also, it’s not existing to persuade readers to do something irrationally. It doesn’t try to do any harm to readers.

2.The article is not an advertisement. Referring to Template:Advert wikipedia advert template, the advert tag is for those articles directly trying to sell products to readers, and if an article is simply showing a company’s material from an overall positive perspective, it cannot be tagged as advertisement. This page is for the purpose to help build a useful page for the people who may want to have some knowledge of ChnLove. In all, the page is merely concerned with providing information coming from authoritative sources. Gratmeri ( talk) 10:00, 19 September 2014 (UTC)— Gratmeri ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

• Delete Notability not shown by reliable independent sources. The only sources cited are the subject's own page, Alexa (for the ranking) and a site purporting to rank international dating sites, which doesn't itself appear reliable. See WP:V and WP:RS. NawlinWiki ( talk) 17:56, 19 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete. No attempt made to show that the site is notable. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 08:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete. A google search reveals no substantive coverage of this site in reliable sources. Absent further evidence, this site is not notable. Dolescum ( talk) 23:59, 21 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep - The Online Personals Watch is reliable independent source with verifiability.

1 First, the site Online Personal Watch is not a site purporting to rank international dating sites. It is the dating industry news and commentary for the Dating Industry launched by industry analyst and consultant Mark Brooks. The following are the sources: http://www.crunchbase.com/organization/online-personals-watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUDgRDw1dWo; http://www.onlinedatingmagazine.com/datingoffice09/markbrooks.html

2 The site Online Personal Watch and Mark Brooks have received a lot of authoritative coverage since its establishment. It has been mentioned in sites yahoo.news, usatoday, marketwatch, washingtonpost, nypost

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/is-your--lover--for-real--picking-the-wrong-online-date-could-cost-you-your-home-174643233.html#4VVtziO

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/05/20/dating-matchmaking-eharmony-matchcom/9276579/

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/5-extreme-ways-to-succeed-on-dating-sites-2014-09-12

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/mobile-dating-apps-grow-in-popularity/2012/08/16/29938bf8-cbc4-11e1-9986-640e8e5f844f_story.html

http://nypost.com/2009/11/29/daters-without-borders/

3 The above are just a few examples. You can find more on this page http://www.onlinepersonalswatch.com/news/in-the-press.html

Online Personal Watch is not a site purporting to rank international dating sites. Who can deny its reliability or Verifiability? This source of the ChnLove page meets the wikipedia norm WP:V and WP:RS Cracy111 ( talk) 03:32, 22 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep - ChnLove is notable with substantive coverage in reliable sources. The page meets the Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Notability and WP:NRV. You can find some reference and evidence to ChnLove here:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11306500 --- New Zealand Herald, a daily newspaper published in Auckland, New Zealandwith the largest newspaper circulation of any in the country

http://ca.shine.yahoo.com/-150-million-dowry-for-chinese-businessman%E2%80%99s-daughter-204344553.html --- a site launched by Yahoo in 2008

http://www.free-press-release.com/news-international-china-dating-chnlove-is-creating-miracles-1337043920.html

http://dating.about.com/u/reviews/asiandating/asianLUR/Jericho-s-chnlove-Review.htm

The site is notable enough to have a page on wikipedia just like many other dating sites on this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_online_dating_websites. It needs development rather than deletion. Sorry to post twice and I don't mean to add "Keep" votes. They are just two different points. Cracy111 ( talk) 04:16, 22 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep. When I searched Chnlove, I found this page. In my opinion, it should stay. I know the site Online personals watch mentioned by Cracy111. Online Personals Watch is a respected source of information in the dating industry. Alexa is a California-based subsidiary company of Amazon.com which provides commercial web traffic data and is visited by over 8.8 million people monthly: http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/alexa.com. They are certainly reliable sources for establishing notability. Moreover, the page is about the subject ChnLove and it is useful to add a link to the official website. So visitors can learn more about Chnlove after reading this wikipedia page.

Those are just my opinion Billhamus ( talk) 08:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC) — Billhamus ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

• Delete As per nom ,RHaworth and Dolescum not notable. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 13:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC) reply