WIKIPEDIA:ARTICLES FOR DELETION LOG 2014 DECEMBER 29

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 28 December	30 December >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Closing per WP:SNOW, no need to spin this out any longer. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 13:38, 1 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Broad-banded temple pit viper

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

No citations, very short description. Mr. Anon 515 23:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep "No citations, very short description." may have been true at the time of tagging, but those are things that can be fixed by editing, they aren't sufficient reason to delete. Article may be short now, but it was only ten minutes old when it was tagged for deletion. Oh and it now has a citation. I'm not convinced every species is notable, but I think it a fair bet that every extant species of snake is notable. Ϣere SpielChequers 00:08, 30 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep neither of the reasons put forth by the nominator are valid reasons to delete. Per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES, a species should usually pass AfD if it has a valid name and is given at least a blurb in a reputable source. Check and check (pdf). Dea db eef 03:38, 30 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Keepper Deadbeef. -- Rsrikanth05 ( talk) 08:14, 30 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep obviously passes WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES based upon the reference that Deadbeef has provided. — Jkudlick ^t c_s 10:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Nominator attempted to rescind AfD and also provided the first reference. Recommend closing early based upon these diffs and !votes already cast, therefore WP:SNOW. — Jkudlick ^t c_s 10:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep Yeah this nomination was a mistake. Unfortunately, bots prevented me from removing the deletion template. Mr. Anon 515 03:22, 31 December 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. § FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:06, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Jenna Harrington

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

All sources cited are primary, no evidence of coverage in reliable independent sources, therefore fails WP:BIO reddogsix ( talk) 22:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete - per nomination. -- Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:40, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete: per nom, vanity page. Vrac ( talk) 23:42, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete .... No evidence of notability,. – Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 23:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:47, 1 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:47, 1 January 2015 (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. The nominator has withdrawn the nomination and there are no other arguments for deletion. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 14:15, 1 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Helan, Mandi Bahauddin

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

This article is about a village near Mandi Bahauddin, Pakistan. The village exists and is mentioned in a Pakistani online newspaper, here. Its history goes back into antiquity and should welcome here. However, I think the article is in such poor shape that it qualifies for WP:TNT. It remained in its current state since March, 2014 -- I eat BC Fish ( talk) 19:59, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Withdrawn by nominator - Changes by PWilkinson address the issue I had - namely the quality of the content of the article. I've added an external link that mentions the Village in a Pakistani weekly journal. I eat BC Fish ( talk) 21:58, 31 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (soliloquize) @ 21:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep per WP:GEOLAND. Underneath the poor English and punctuation and the complete lack of Wikification, there was actually a serious attempt at a reasonable article. I think I've now salvaged enough from the first few sentences of the article for a one-paragraph stub, and there might be something more to salvage from the rest of the article (though I am almost certain that all the material on Alexander the Great will have to go - I get the impression that most places in Pakistan claim to have been founded by him). Note that, as is often the case with Pakistani topics, transliteration can be a problem - a number of potential sources seem to spell the name as "Helaan". PWilkinson ( talk) 18:31, 31 December 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Kiyoshi Shiina

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}}

.

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

Queried speedy delete as "deleted and recreated", but User:CrazyAces489 told me that he has permission at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 September 20 to recreate the page. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 09:33, 8 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep Notable subject based on martial arts notability. Subject of independent articles.

Daily News good [1]? or Hartford Courant [2] ??

- blackbelt magazine

Daily News [3] and Hartford Courant [4]as references] Made NYT [5] 7 Dec 1980 Japan Judo, a "dojo," or judo school, in Stamford run by Kiyoshi Shiina, who possessed the highest ranked black belt. CrazyAces489 ( talk) 19:28, 8 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse ( talk) 17:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC) reply

A similar comment to another article championed by the same editor also up for AfD review. The prose style (although better here) and reference formatting make it really hard to judge WP:GNG. A large quantity of references, often repeated, of dubious quality, and mostly only passing mentions do nothing to establish notability. It would really help to judge one way or the other if the references could be fixed up. The article probably does not meet WP:MANOTE on its own. Peter Rehse ( talk) 17:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC) reply

CommentAnother Independent Article
thumbnail|left -->
thumbnail|center --> CrazyAces489 ( talk

Delete and Salt This article was speedily deleted last week. There's no reason why this article should keep being recreated when there's no new evidence of notability. Lots of passing mentions and articles on some of his students do not give him notability ( WP:NOTINHERITED). Mdtemp ( talk) 19:20, 9 December 2014 (UTC) reply

CommentMDTemp - The article was allowed to be recreated as per [6] . I have placed in a number of articles that show notability as per the links above and within the article. I have also placed in an independent article onto this AFD. Please read this as well. Also what does Salt mean? CrazyAces489 ( talk) 19:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC) reply

You were allowed to recreate the article once, but that doesn't mean you can keep doing it. Piling on passing mentions doesn't show notability. What makes him more notable than he was at the previous AFD discussion? Mdtemp ( talk) 20:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC) reply

CommentI was allowed to recreate the article this past fall. I didn't keep doing it, I did it once. It was speedily deleted, to which I put up a message stating that it was allowed to be recreated. There are a number of new articles as well as the article on this AFD that is directly about him from the United States Judo Federation. I placed it right on the page. CrazyAces489 ( talk) 06:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete I did some work on this article, attempting to bring it up to standard based on some of the claims made for the subject. Unfortunately I could see no real notability for the subject. There are multiple trivial mentions of him in notable publications, including adverts for his club that were placed in newspapers and promotional biographies placed in Black Belt magazine in the 1960s. There's just no significant independent coverage of him. I don't doubt that he's a talented judoka and coach. I don't doubt that he's a nice guy. I just don't think he merits a wikipedia article. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 16:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:25, 10 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:25, 10 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete I looked at the sources mentioned here and in the first AfD discussion and I agree with Catfish Jim's assessment--there is simply not enough significant coverage to show he's WP notable. However, that doesn't mean he's not a good judoka and teacher. Papaursa ( talk) 19:14, 14 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete Passing mentions are not enough to prove notability. 204.126.132.231 ( talk) 16:49, 15 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep Very notable within the Judo community 24.103.234.74 ( talk) 23:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep - very obviously passes WP:GNG by any standard for bio information in any other sport, would even say it shouldn't have been deleted in the first place. In ictu oculi ( talk) 05:05, 17 December 2014 (UTC) reply

I would think if it was obvious it wouldn't have been deleted originally and there wouldn't be this protracted discussion. Can you please point out the multiple cases of significant independent coverage that show he's notable? Papaursa ( talk) 03:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC) reply

USJF magazine, NY Times, St. John's University, Daily News, Oswwegian, and others. They do exist. CrazyAces489 ( talk) 13:29, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply

keep notable and well known judoka 98.14.108.64 ( talk) 21:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC) reply

— 98.14.108.64 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\
talk / 09:34, 20 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete This looks a lot like the first AfD discussion--lots of NYC IPs claiming he's notable but not giving instances of significant coverage. Passing mentions do not verify notability claims. I don't believe the coverage meets GNG or the achievements meet MANOTE. Jakejr ( talk) 23:39, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply
comment Possibly because he is well known in NYC. There is a national article USJF, and that has a whole article dedicated to him. There are mentions of him in magazines from the 1960's, 1970's, 1980's, 1990's, 2000's and 2010's all surrounding judo. Six different decades shows notability! CrazyAces489 ( talk) 02:51, 22 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep Made NYT [7] 7 Dec 1980 Japan Judo, a "dojo," or judo school, in Stamford run by Kiyoshi Shiina, who possessed the highest ranked black belt. appears to me to ice the notability issue. Collect ( talk) 13:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC) Note that I am not an IP, and I find the dismissal of all who find the topic to be sufficiently notable to be distasteful. Wikipedia does not require "extremely notable" for this type of article. The first AfD close basically discounted all IP !votes, and failed to consider that if a topic meets notability guidelines that "I do not like the topic" is not a valid policy-based argument for deletion. Collect ( talk) 12:51, 22 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Comment In martial arts "highest" (context?) rank is not an indicator of notability, nor is running a school or who you trained which is all the The NYTimes article supports. The article itself was about Joe Wanag and therefore again a single passing mention. The AfD is not a Vote - never has been - and I don't think the closing administrator discounted the IP opinions. Peter Rehse ( talk) 13:19, 22 December 2014 (UTC) reply
- Note the closing statement on the earlier AfD "!Votes from new and unregistered users have been given lower weight," which sure looks like the closer gave IP opinions lower weight. Nor is arguing with those who hold opinions contrary to your own likely to benefit the purposes of the discussion here -- the goal of this page is to determine whether there are policy-based positions which call for deletion, not whether you like or do not like a topic or person. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 13:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC) reply
comment Remember WP:MANOTE is a guide not law. IP opinions are their beliefs and should be held as being valid. He would be notable according to WP:ANYBIO and WP:SPORTCRIT. 5 decades of coverage in magazines in the 1960's to 2010's from the NY Times, USJF Magazine, Daily News, Black Belt Magazine, Hartford Courier, The Oswegian, etc shows notability. CrazyAces489 ( talk) 20:27, 22 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Comment just to draw attention that the two named accounts who voted keep last time got specifically asked to come an comment here ( this and this) this seems to be a WP:Votestacking problem"Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion", "In the case of a re-consideration of a previous debate (such as a "no consensus" result on an AFD or CFD), it is similarly inappropriate to send an undue number of notifications specifically to those who expressed a particular viewpoint on the previous debate." - 100% of the name account keep voters who hadn't previously voted here seems likely undue. -- 86.2.216.5 ( talk) 07:33, 23 December 2014 (UTC) reply
- I did not consider the contact with me to have been "votestacking" - the issue is whether "two" is a "disproportionate number" in the case at hand. I simply made the same comment as before, which was valid then and remains valid now. As it is policy-based, the concept that my information is now made less valid is nicely Dali-esque. Collect ( talk) 12:43, 23 December 2014 (UTC) reply
comment they have done their research on the topic. Cindamuse passed away, Paparusa already voted the same way he did previously, Astudent0 doesnt post on wikipedia anymore . CrazyAces489 ( talk) 10:30, 23 December 2014 (UTC) reply

I don't post often, but I still post occasionally. Astudent0 ( talk) 19:56, 23 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete I remember the first discussion. I don't see major new sources that show notability and I don't see any additional achievements that add to his resume. Because every organization has their own rank hierarchy, rank has never been considered a valid indicator of martial arts notability here at WP. No argument that there are a number of passing mentions, but WP requires significant coverage. Bottom line: doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:MANOTE. Astudent0 ( talk) 19:56, 23 December 2014 (UTC) reply

comment There has been a few new sources since you last reviewed the article. This includes the Oswegian, The Torch, and an independently made article from the USJF.

File:Shiina.jpg

Coment One of the most Technically skilled Judoka Outside of Japan. The Torch April 9, 2014 http://issuu.com/stjtorch/docs/final4.9 — Preceding unsigned comment added by CrazyAces489 ( talk • contribs)

I have to say this is one of the problems of massing references with what looks like very little discrimination. The article uses this reference twice - once saying most skilled in Japan and the other most skilled outside of Japan - which one is it - I can not tell from the link. Peter Rehse ( talk) 22:05, 27 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Small error, in the article it says inside. http://issuu.com/stjtorch/docs/final4.9 Page 9 CrazyAces489 ( talk) 01:31, 28 December 2014 (UTC) reply

That is quite a statement for a student newspaper to make. Peter Rehse ( talk) 12:34, 28 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete per others, especially PRehse. Thought experiment: If you'd take away the name dropping and the blatant attempt at self-justification that this article makes, you wouldn't have anything left. Notability requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The only independent reliable sources mention only in passing. The rest of the article is simply an attempt to justify itself passing the Notability criterion. Jsharpminor ( talk) 03:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply
comment Jsharpminor, this article here is from the USJF magazine. The original national federation of Judo. This is not a passing mention and independent of him.

File:Shiina.jpg

CrazyAces489 ( talk) 05:24, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Default to keep per CrazyAces489 and Collect. Nearly all of the coverage about the subject comes from the pre-Internet era. The most promising one ( The New York Times) is behind a paywall so the depth of coverage cannot be assessed. Here are the sources (primarily passing mentions) I found about the subject, which might be helpful in verifying facts in the article:
1. Parton, Keese (1980-12-07). "Judo Champion, 14, A Stylish Stalwart; Young Judo Champ Fights for Perfection". The New York Times. Retrieved 2014-12-29.
  The article notes:
  They found the perfect advance course: Japan Judo, a "dojo," or judo school, in Stamford run by Kiyoshi Shiina, who possessed the highestranked black belt in
  The article is behind a paywall, so cannot be viewed in full.
2. "2 Japanese Take President's Advice". Kingsport Times-News. United Press International. 1962-07-08. Archived from the original on 2014-12-29. Retrieved 2014-12-29 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes:
  Westfield, N.J. (UPI)—Two Japanese college graduates have taken President Kennedy at his word and opened a business here.
  The two, Kiyoshi Shiina and Yoshicado Yonezuka, are 1960 graduates of Nippon University. Gratified to read Thursday that the president had invited the Japanese to invest in the United States, the two promptly opened a school to teach judo.
3. Coffey, Wayne (1998-04-26). "A Vision From Within She Is A Mother Of Three, A National Judo Champion... And Blind". New York Daily News. Archived from the original on 2011-03-23. Retrieved 2014-12-29.
  The article notes:
  Ninety minutes after dinner, Perez kisses the kids goodbye and heads for Kiyosh Shiina's storefront judo school on Bay Parkway.
  ...
  It was just two months ago that Marybeth Perez won her national title in her first competition with the U.S. Association of Blind Athletes (USABA), in Colorado Springs. It earned her a place in the world championships this summer in Spain, where Kiyosh Shiina expects big things from her.
  Shiina has been teaching judo for nearly 40 years. He never had a sightless student until Perez came to him six months ago, and has not often seen the likes of her determination.
  "She's very, very exceptional," Shiina said. "Even big, strong guys come in here and can't take it. Not just in handicapped, but in regular competition, she can be a top player."
4. Greeney, Bob (1991-02-05). "Greeney". The Hour. Retrieved 2014-12-29.
  The article notes:
  Wanag was coached by Kiyoshi Shiina, and as Wanag puts it, "I owe a lot of my accomplishments to my judo instructor Mr. Shiina. I highly doubt I'd be where I am today if it wasn't for him. He taught me judo."
5. McCormack, Tom (1992-07-22). "Persistence pays off for Wilton's Wanag". New Haven Register. Archived from the original on 2014-12-29. Retrieved 2014-12-29.
  The article notes:
  When he was just 8, Joey Wanag of Wilton would be taken faithfully by his mother, Mary, three days a week to the Japan Judo & Karate School in Stamford.
  His teacher there, Kiyoshi Shiina, saw almost immediately that he had more than a curious pupil on his hands. He had a boy determined to excel.
Cunard ( talk) 06:24, 29 December 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, Randykitty ( talk) 18:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep Definitely notable enough for an article.-- TMD Talk Page. 03:54, 30 December 2014 (UTC) reply
There's no question he has passing mentions, which is all these are. Also, notability is not inherited from your students. Jakejr ( talk) 21:40, 30 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Jakejr, look up at the USJF article, that is a dedicated article. CrazyAces489 ( talk) 01:35, 31 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Weak keep He has some significance. He had a few students who are somewhat notable. I could de-orphan this article without problems, since he already was mentioned in three other articles. It is not much, but Mr. Shiina's notability is still better if you compare it to Onalaska, Wisconsin-based dance teacher Misty Lown, whose article survived an AfD earlier this month. Jeff5102 ( talk) 14:52, 31 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Comment I agree that he is much more well known than Misty Lown and I have viewed her AFD here [8]. CrazyAces489 ( talk) 21:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Just because an article is not an orphan doesn't make it notable. Comparing articles is not a valid way of determining notability (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). Jakejr ( talk) 07:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Uou can say that but other stuffexists shows that we have an established level of what is considered to be notable and what isn't notable enough for an article. We have to have something that can serve as a base level. CrazyAces489 ( talk) 12:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment WP:OSE doesn't apply here. A typical OTHERSTUFFEXISTS-way of reasoning is "There's an article on x, and this is JUST AS famous as that." My reasoning is nothing like that. My argument is "Article x passed an AfD without being deleted, and this is even somewhat MORE famous than that."

For example: if I create articles on my neighbours Tom, Dick and Larry, I cannot seriously argue that the "neighbour Tom"-article cannot be deleted because a "neighbour Dick"-article exists. However, if the "neighbour Tom"-article survives an AfD, it would be strange to say that the article on the slightly more famous "neighbour Dick" can be deleted, without taking into account that the neigbour Tom-article passed the deletion discussion. That would mean that the guidelines work different for each neighbour, and that cannot be right, Best regards, Jeff5102 ( talk) 21:14, 2 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Exactly Jeff! additionally WP:PRECEDENT show that we have a basis for keeping Shiina's article along with his strong olympic caliber teaching capabilities as well as independent article about him. CrazyAces489 ( talk) 00:32, 3 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Actually, OSE is to indicate that each article needs to stand on its own merits. You've used the very first argument that essay says not to use: "Keep. There's an article on x, and this is just as famous as that." Papaursa ( talk) 03:33, 7 January 2015 (UTC) reply

This article isn't just as famous, it is more famous and more notable. That article passed an AFD, and this one has far more in terms of notability than that article. CrazyAces489 ( talk) 05:53, 7 January 2015 (UTC) reply

weak delete I don't think he meets the notability standards listed for martial artists and I also don't think he quite meets the coverage requirements of WP:GNG, but I'm a new editor (but long time user) and am not that sure of the rules. I thought I'd try to test my knowledge at some contentious debates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.150.214.113 ( talk) 18:22, 2 January 2015 (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. Due to not meeting the verifiability policy. If anyone wants it userfying let me know. Davewild ( talk) 18:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Hotrayrain

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

Not clear what the article is about. Might be a town or village, but Google does not return any hits [9]. Vanjagenije ( talk) 19:34, 20 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:42, 20 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment - Also, see these files File:Fruits of Hotrayrain..jpg, [[:]], File:Area of Hotrayrain..jpg. JT_dale^Talk~ 19:50, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep in draft space or move to a better translation - it's clearly a place (a hillside village according to the image at right) and this draft might give some insight. Perhaps the name is an English translation and so doesn't appear elsewhere. Either way, it would seem to both exist and be populated, thus passing WP:GEOLAND. St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep Userfy – per Stalwart111. The draft is on the creator's User page, which is trying to put it in Category:Villages_in_Punjab,_Pakistan. It needs that information, plus a source. ~~Putting it back in draft space should give the creator time to work on it and decide the name.~~ We could also suggest asking for advice at the Teahouse on getting it into shape and including the pictures, which are great. – Margin1522 ( talk) 08:22, 24 December 2014 (UTC) reply
- Comment – I asked at User_talk:Sitush#Hotrayrain, and apparently there is no online source for Punjab village names. I tidied it up some and added an infobox and category. This may be the best that we can do, so I am changing my !vote to keep. I'll leave a note at the creator's User page and ask if he can add coordinates. If he can, a map should appear showing the location, like the other villages that use this infobox. – Margin1522 ( talk) 13:29, 25 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Userfy. I suppose the article has some potential, and Stalwart has shown that it exists. However, it is definitely not ready for the mainspace. -- Biblio worm 05:01, 25 December 2014 (UTC) Keep. Due to the improvements to the article, I'll change my !vote to keep. -- Biblio worm 16:48, 25 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete I had put up a word at Shahmukhi Punjabi WP to an admin and a long time contributor. He has not heard of the name. In any case, it should be verified by at least one source.--Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 10:00, 26 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep Appears inhabited. Editor is clearly intent on improving the article and adding more information. -- I eat BC Fish ( talk) 03:50, 28 December 2014 (UTC) reply

~~Keep~~ Per WP:INDAFD article about this sort of Indian-Pakistani villages generally get zero coverage online but it may have offline coverage. I will assume good faith that the village exists and hence passes WP:GEOLAND. Jim Carter 06:56, 28 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete as failing WP:V. Unless we can come up with a source that confirms that this village exists and is in Punjab, the verifiability policy mandates deletion. Good faith is not good enough in this case. Sandstein 08:08, 28 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Week keep: recent article by a recent editor. Apparently inhabited place and hence apparently notable. Renominate in 3 months if no improvement. -- lTopGunl ( talk) 13:42, 28 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete per Sandstein above. I've searched for any information about this supposed place, using as many alternative transliterations as I can think of, and have turned up exactly nothing. WP:V is not negotiable, and if there are no sources that support the very existence of this place (even a dot on a map or a database entry), it's just whistling in the wind to claim that the article "passes WP:GEOLAND". I've participated in a number of AfDs dealing with places for which absolutely no sources can be found; these are almost always deleted. (Of course, if anyone can provide evidence of the village's existence, I will reconsider my !vote.) Deor ( talk) 15:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete, inhabited places are generally notable, but that statement presupposes that we have decent sources that verify the existence of the place. In this case, there doesn't appear to be much in the way of sources to prove that it's a real place that goes by that name. My own gut feel is that this probably is a real place, but as pointed out above, WP:V is not negotiable, and this article fails it. Lankiveil ^{(
speak to me)} 22:42, 28 December 2014 (UTC). reply
~~Keep~~ Delete until it's verified. - It does appear to be an inhabited population center. It ain't New York, but it's still a village.-- Oakshade ( talk) 00:06, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete for failing WP:V. Settlements are notable if they can be verified to exist. There is no trace of anything by this name outside Wikipedia. Even if we assume the author's good faith, the author needs to produce evidence in any language that the subject is real. Even in Pakistan, a village of 4,000 people should be listed somewhere. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete until WP:V can be met, keep the moment it can. -- j⚛e decker ^talk 02:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete for both WP:V as well as WP:PEACOCK. "Common fruits and vegetables...can be seen in every garden"? "a beautiful view in every season"? The only part of this article that's salvageable is information we can't verify. Jsharpminor ( talk) 03:25, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Comment I agree that this article is totally unverifiable. Since the article is created by a brand new user so I think we should assume good faith and should give him a chance to add at least one source. So IMO we should move the article to the creator's userspace and help him create the article. @ Sandstein, Deor, and Lankiveil: @ Gene93k and Joe Decker: What you all say? Jim Carter 11:41, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

I have no particular objection to userification; it might be that there are source in Pahari or Punjabi which obviously I wouldn't be able to find. But it should not be in the mainspace until such sources are added. Lankiveil ^{(
speak to me)} 11:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC). reply
Just as I would support retention in draft space, I would be comfortable with retention in user space. It's not ready for mainspace (that seems clear) but allowing it to be worked on seems like a good idea. St★lwart¹¹¹ 12:02, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Not opposed in principle, but if no source could be found so far, what's the likelihood of the user finding a reliable source later? Sandstein 12:17, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

@ Sandstein: We are searching for sources in English so far. But it is possible that there maybe sources in Punjabi, Urdu and Pahari language. And from my experience, I can say that this sort of villages get coverage in offline sources and Government databases. The author is familiar with the subject, so it is possible that they can find sources later. Jim Carter 16:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

I'm still for deletion per Fuhghettaboutit below. Too unlikely that somebody will source this very poor draft stub. Sandstein 07:09, 31 December 2014 (UTC) reply

File:Area of Hotrayrain..jpg

Comment, the author has uploaded this image to Commons which includes some road signs. Unfortunately they are not readable from the image quality, but if he @ Wasif09 and Wasif0909: can provide the text we may be able to resolve this. The photographs from the author certainly prove that this village exists. What has not been verified is that it is called what he says it is called and it is located where he claims it is located. There is a draft of this article at Draft:Hotrayrain. I suggest anything in the article not currently in the draft and any cleanup that has been done here be merged into the draft before deleting. Spinning Spark 17:16, 29 December 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, Randykitty ( talk) 18:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete until the verifiability concerns can be resolved through adequate sourcing. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 ( talk) 20:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Move to his Sandbox since he's working on it, Personally I'm not sure if it's a complete hoax but if it's kept in the sandbox for the time being then no harm done. – Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 00:00, 30 December 2014 (UTC) reply

~~Speedy~~ Delete - ~~A11/G3~~ - There's only 212 results on Google and other than WP and mirror sites there's absolutely nothing to even verify it's existence at all .... I also believe those images (on right) are all of some other area.... (I appreciate some areas aren't known but come on how can this not be known at all ?).. – Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 03:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC) reply

~~Well CSD'ing that worked wonders!, – Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 05:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC)~~ reply

You may be right and this will turn out to be a hoax, but it was an extreme case of lack of AGF to give the user a templated hoax warning at this stage while the AFD is still being discussed. It may not be so surprising that sources are not turning up in English. The language of the region is Pahari and it is written in the Devanagari script. The name given sounds to me like it may be a DIY translation rather than the proper English transliteration (if there even is one) so unless you search with the proper Devangari script you are going to come up with Jack shit and not prove anything at all. Spinning Spark 11:52, 30 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Which I've reverted [10] (I will admit I shouldn't of gave the warning at all), I simply assumed it would still be in the results with perhaps the correct name next to it or something ....– Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 15:27, 30 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete. Verifiability is non-negotiable. We cannot have an article that cannot be sourced.-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 05:13, 30 December 2014 (UTC) reply
- Comment – In theory yes. In point of fact, we have many similar articles with no sources. The metadata for two of the pictures shows that they were taken on 13 December with a smartphone in Pakistan, two days before they were uploaded to Commons. So I'm thinking they are probably genuine. The article was created on 18 December, five days later. I'm thinking a college student who took these pictures on a short visit back home. It would be good to have the village's name in the original language, plus the name of the (probably offline) source that indicates it exists, plus the coordinates. The coordinates may not be simple, since even with a GPS smartphone the village itself may not have smartphone service. Anyway, instead of deleting it, I think it should at least be userfied to give the author the chance to add this information. Apparently the user has two accounts: User talk:Wasif0909, where I left a message asking for this information, and User talk:Wasif09. He hasn't replied on either so far. I'm guessing he's pretty confused right now. – Margin1522 ( talk) 07:37, 30 December 2014 (UTC) reply

I file that under "any content once added is sacrosanct" (for some reason). It ignores all pragmatics. This stub took ~5-10 minutes to write, and by all measures it fails our most fundamental policy. We could all write sourced stubs in the same time. Is it possible this is a real place, and that the person who made four edits ten days ago and never returned will come back, and provide a correct transliteration so we can find sources, if they even exist, or will source it themselves, after they posted this, like so many others before them, without taking any heed of our basic policies that attempt to ensure good and trustworthy content? Sure. It is likely? Not at all. Yes, we have tons of unsourced content. That's not a reason to allow more, it's a badge of shame that needs fixing. Here, we have numerous experienced editors who've actually looked for sources and not found them, and yet somehow we're talking about keeping this. Not enforcing verifiability with teeth, through some pragmatic policy to delete if sources are asked for and none are added is how we've dug our hole so deep. Keeping articles where we've actually looked for sources and can't find any on the off chance a poster might come back is jumping in the hole and burying ourselves.-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 22:47, 30 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment – If you look at the author's struggles to create this article (rejected at AfC, User page deleted by an admin) I think it took more than 10 minutes. And now we have an editor at Commons who wants to delete the hillside image, citing this AfD and calling it a hoax. I don't know exactly what criteria they have over there, but I don't think it's a hoax and I'm going to try and save it. I want to put it on my own user page, just as a reminder that we really need to do better in helping newbies understand our sourcing requirements. – Margin1522 ( talk) 14:43, 1 January 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf ( talk) 14:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply

List of Fiorello H. LaGuardia High School alumni

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

List tagged for needing cites since 2013 with little appreciable improvement, and is consequently violating WP:Source list. Would probably work better as a category. DonIago ( talk) 16:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Speedy keep. Nomination does not state a valid basis for deletion. See Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions including, for example, WP:MUST, WP:NOEFFORT. We don't delete articles because of a lack of sourcing if the sourcing is available, and plenty of sources are available here (many of them already present in the relevant bio articles). Alumni lists are a standard part of every high school article. LaGuardia is noted for its many famous alumni, see e.g. "Fame's Honor Roll" and many other similar articles, so a spinoff is appropriate. -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 16:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

FWIW I considered retracting my nomination when I saw that you'd started adding sources but felt I should give it a bit more time before doing so. I don't agree with your claim that my concerns are invalid, but I have noted that you've improved the article and will keep an eye on it and retract the nomination if/when I feel there's enough improvement to focus on particular list entries rather than the article entire. Right now I'm still not convinced that a category wouldn't be a better way of handling this. DonIago ( talk) 17:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:58, 1 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:58, 1 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:59, 1 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Speedy keep. WP:NOTCLEANUP: effort would be better spent improving the article. The nominator has failed to explain why this topic isn't notable. Pburka ( talk) 22:56, 1 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep - Obviously a nested page for Fiorello H. LaGuardia High School. Lengthy list which would bog down the main page. Wikipedia is not paper and all that. Carrite ( talk) 04:55, 5 January 2015 (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. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Wright Eclipse SchoolRun

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

~~No references, only one operator owns examples of them. Would suggest merge to Wright Eclipse as it is a part of its family. aycliffe ^talk 14:51, 29 December 2014 (UTC)~~ reply
Withdrawn -- aycliffe ^talk 14:52, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator with no delete !votes ( non-admin closure) Dea db eef 21:10, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Pneumocyte

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

This article seems largely redundant, due to the existence of Type I pneumocyte and Type II pneumocyte, which are both more detailed than this existing article. Furthermore, I'm not aware of anything that would be inappropriate for those two pages that would fit in this article. Anything particularly notable could be discussed in a new article.

I would suggest a merge, but as far as I can tell there is limited info in this stub that could be incorporated into those 2 more specific articles. While summary pages do exist for some topics, with more specific articles for particular topics (e.g. cells types/proteins/enzymes), with only 2 cell types I don't think the pneumocyte subject warrants this type of summary page. Cmastris ( talk) 14:24, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Withdrawn by nominator. Based on the article history and your other points about a summary, I was probably too hasty suggesting a deletion. Hopefully we can instead try to fix some of the article's issues and expand it a little more. Cmastris ( talk) 18:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep As we are an encyclopedia, and so have a lot of ground to cover, our preference is to cover material in a summary style for the general reader. The page in question does a good job of explaining the topic succinctly. Readers who want more detail are provided with appropriate links. Forcing readers to straight to go the detail would not be so sensible. For one thing they might have to choose a type before they understand the difference between them. The numbers are little help, as they are not meaningful. Andrew D. ( talk) 14:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:54, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:55, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Speedy keep – The Type I and Type II articles were split from this one in this diff. We can't delete this article because then we would lose the history. Also I agree with Andrew D. that it is OK to keep this article as a kind of disamb page. – Margin1522 ( talk) 17:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Contact me if anyone wants to userfy and attempt to salvage. Mojo Hand ( talk) 01:21, 6 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Representation of Women in The Big Bang Theory

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

Article reads as an essay, contains a number of questionable sources, including a blog, a college thesis, and a wiki, contains a large amount of quotes, and is not written from a neutral point of view. Although the subject of the article may meet notability requirements, it is so un-encyclopedic now that it should be blown up and stated over or userfied. Hirolovesswords ( talk) 14:02, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Redirect but I don't know where. The article is basically a coatrack for two studies, not that these are not reliable studies, but we wouldn't write a whole article around them. Whether the redirect is to Big Bang Theory, or some article about the representation of women in culture, I'm not sure, but at worst, The Big Bang Theory is a target, though it is large and perhaps a bit clunky at the moment (the awards table can be split off, that's a common means to trim down, and the section about all the relationships without any sourcing seems like OR); this criticism of the show for how it depicts female characters should be in the critical reception section there. -- MASEM ( t) 15:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete Per nom. It is an essay. Bazinga. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete Just an essay. Doubt redirect would be useful. However the topic itself could have encyclopaedic value and any useful part of that should be transferred to the theme or critical review section of the main article. Cowlibob ( talk) 19:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete. It's an essay. We don't do essays. -- Calidum 03:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete per nominator.-- TMD Talk Page. 03:55, 30 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Return to draft space - I do believe that the subject is notable. The problem here is neutrality, which could potentially be solved via editing. Merging with TBBT is not really viable as that article is very large already, as noted. Perhaps the best idea would be to re-work this into a larger topic ("critical reception of TBBT") which can go into more depth than the main article, but also cover more points of view than presented here. Regardless, it seems like somethign could be worked out in draft space to salvage the contribution rather than "blow it up and start over". Pinging @ Joe Decker: who accepted this at AfC (and noted it had some problems when doing so). -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 18:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete- Just an essay. The topic does not seem notable, and I doubt it can be covered [[WP:NPOV|neutrally] even in principle. Reyk _YO! 16:15, 1 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete essay. Bearcat ( talk) 09:14, 3 January 2015 (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 Deleted (G11) by RHaworth. – Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 17:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Monk Lifestyle

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

Non-notable company fails WP:ORGDEPTH for lack of available sources. - Mr X 13:01, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy keep. The nominator has withdrawn the nomination and there are no other arguments for deletion. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 14:05, 1 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Instrument of Degradation

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

Article has had two CSD tags removed, one for no content by the creator with minimal content added and one for duplicate content by a third party stating a redirect was possible. A PROD tag was also removed by a third party stating the topic was probably notable.

The idea of an instrument of degradation is a general concept of a document stating that someone is removed from a particular position of honor or honorable society (thus not particularly notable, though certain degradations may be), yet the only example and source provided are the same example and source provided in Order of the Garter#Degradation of members. A redirect would not be appropriate at this point because the only main space article that links to the page is also the only place this article could plausibly be redirected. Adding a clarifying statement to the Garter article would satisfy any need to provide additional information and still satisfy WP:NOT#DICT. — Jkudlick ^t c_s 12:25, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^t c_s 12:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

CommentI created the article after noting that it appears to be a specific act directed at office holders. I am certainly not an expert in the area and was hoping a stub would flesh out more meaning and subjects. It didn't appear to be specifically related to the Order of the Garter and I presumed more knowledgeable editors would add to it or acknowledge that it is only an Order of the Garter sanction Without either, though, it should remain as a stub. Other notable awards or distinctions are articles such as Medal of Honor -- DHeyward ( talk) 13:43, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

You're correct that the Medal of Honor has its own article as the highest military decoration in the United States, as does the Victoria Cross for its similar stature within the UK and the Realms (and the versions specific to Australia, Canada, and New Zealand). Similarly, the Order of Canada, the various UK Orders of Chivalry, and Legion of Honour are among a number of high-level awards given to civilians which have their own articles, yet members of those orders can be removed (degraded) after a process involving the investigation of allegations of misdeeds (in the case of the Order of the Garter, Order of the Thistle, and Royal Victorian Order, members can be removed at HM's will as those orders are in the Sovereign's Personal Gift, though such removals are exceedingly rare). Each removal includes an official notice to the public in the form of letters patent that the individual has been removed from that order – this is the instrument of degradation though it may have other names, e.g. an Ordinance of termination from the Order of Canada. (See Sections 25 and 26 and the Policy and Procedure for Termination of Appointment to the Order Of Canada of the Constitution of the Order of Canada.) Highly notable individuals degraded from an order can be mentioned in the order's article, and the degradation can also mentioned in the individual's article, but an instrument of degradation is just a public notice that someone is no longer in an order. — Jkudlick ^t c_s 01:24, 30 December 2014 (UTC) reply

We have articles on other similar notices such as arrest warrant or as you referenced above, letters patent. The historical pageantry for an Instrument of Degradation seems a bit beyond just a notice. Striking down the the KG's stuff from St. George's chapel and kicking it out the door as the instrument is read seems a bit more than public notice. We have articles on Coronation which in the dictionary is just a ceremony or crowning a monarch but it's history is what makes it encyclopedic. If there are different ceremonies surrounding various Instrument of Degradation, that is what should be captured here. I don't disagree with your meaning and I wrote it as what I knew of an instrument but also added the case that used that term. I suspect there are more and different procedures for different orders. -- DHeyward ( talk) 02:37, 30 December 2014 (UTC) reply

The pageantry of which you speak was not about the instrument itself, but about the public announcement that the person was being degraded and the humiliation surrounding it. As noted, the last such "ceremony" was in 1715 or 1716 when James Butler, 2nd Duke of Ormonde, was degraded following his conviction in absentia of treason. Numerous people have been degraded from various orders since then, the vast majority without the pomp and circumstance that once existed; even the foreign leaders who were supernumerary members and fought against the UK in the World Wars were not subjected to the full ceremony of degradation, and one (Emperor Hirohito) was even reinstalled. — Jkudlick ^t c_s 04:00, 31 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Should it be renamed "Ceremonies of Degradation"? That's what I found encyclopedic. It was the fact that the accounts were more than just a public notice. -- DHeyward ( talk) 04:58, 31 December 2014 (UTC) reply

I would not be averse to that if additional "ceremonies" can be added and appropriately sourced. I have a few friends in the heraldry community who may be able to assist with some research, though it may be limited to Western Europe. I will admit to possibly being too hasty with this nomination, and look forward to collaborating on this. — Jkudlick ^t c_s 05:34, 31 December 2014 (UTC) reply

That would be perfect as the only known source I have seen had a very specific sequence that was ritualized and seemed rehearsed - throwing the stuff into the choir and then kicking out the side door - obviously done more than once. Other orders may may have had similiar rituals? (dunno). Japan had some other rituals that may or may not be related around the time of the Tokugawa Shogunate. More that just Seppuku which we cover. -- DHeyward ( talk) 06:17, 31 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Withdrawn As nominator and article creator have come to an agreement to alter and expand the scope of the article. — Jkudlick ^t c_s 05:34, 31 December 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G3 (mainly). Bbb23 ( talk) 17:51, 31 December 2014 (UTC) reply

The Chorleyhood

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

This is probably made up by the author of the article. Google Search returns no hits [11]. Vanjagenije ( talk) 12:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete. Totally unreferenced and probably not notable even in Chorleywood. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 18:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (notify) @ 21:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment I put for speedy. It is an attack upon the Irish Travelling communnity in Chorleywood

"In 2004, there has Estimated 45 Irish traveller in Chorleywood that Increased and they started to make Problems. In 2010 Possibly, there started making Funfair in Chorleywood but one that night there was a Golf Course Next to there land that is has under construction since 2001 they went there with a paint-ball gun and they were shooting the Security Club House"

Poorly written POV unsourced and slanderous piece. Murry1975 ( talk) 16:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. § FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply

List of jet airliners

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

We already have lists of all kinds of aircraft (see: List of aircraft and Template:Lists of aircraft). This one is redundant. Vanjagenije ( talk) 11:57, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep The main list of aircraft seems to be organised alphabetically which doesn't seem very useful. Airliners are a common type covered as a group in numerous sources such as The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Commercial Aircraft; Jane's Airlines and Airliners; Airliners of the World, &c. and so the topic satisfies WP:LISTN. The existence of templates, categories and other ways of doing this is irrelevant per WP:CLN. Andrew D. ( talk) 13:54, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

~~Delete~~ a random list that is not really needed we have plenty of lists and categories covering the subject this doesnt add anything, wikipedia is not a holding area for made up lists. MilborneOne ( talk) 16:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

There's nothing random about this list - these are obviously the main types of modern commercial airliner. Where else would we go to get this information? The alphabetic list is useless for this purpose as it's so huge and indiscriminate that it is broken down by letter — e.g. List of aircraft (U) which is full of redlinks and obscure types. Andrew D. ( talk) 17:41, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

OK I am convinced by your argument and withdrawn my delete, we have a lot worse lists on aircraft around (including some based on how many seats across and aircraft has! > List of regional airliners) it probably needs some tweaking and making sure it doesnt include to much trivia but that is a talk page issue. MilborneOne ( talk) 00:00, 30 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Now that one should go in the bin. Totally unreferenced article with an inclusion criteria based on another, poorly-referenced article on a topic that is pretty much restricted to countries like the US and Canada (at least, with that name). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep - whilst I'm rather unconvinced about issues with the organisation of another article being relevant here (turn that into a sortable wikitable, that solves most of your issues with it bar its size) and this article is in such a half-baked state that it shouldn't have gone into mainspace yet (looks like the creator got bored halfway through, but they do appear to be relatively new), I do think this list fills a valid purpose. There are indeed far too many aircraft around for them to be located in one large article (and the existence of a general template is irrelevant in my view), and this list has a reasonable inclusion criteria based on a notable topic. I'm not convinced that it should be restricted to purpose-built jet airliners, as there is definitely an overlap with some business jets and jet airliners, but that is a discussion to be had on the talk page. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:54, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep - Thank you all for your comments. First of all, I apologize for I putting this article in the mainspace before it was ready to be fully viewed. That is a mistake I won't repeat. In terms of organiziation and content, I appreciate any constructive comment. From my perspective, the information I had wanted to develop is now present. Not surprisingly, I believe the article should be kept. However, if you elect to delete it, I would like to learn more about the wikipedia's standards so I don't repeat the mistake. Here's why I believe the article is notable:

Most members of the public have their most direct and most frequent contacts with aviation through airline travel. For the majority, travel is on jet airliners. Whether a person wishes to inquire about the background of the airplane they fly on or compare it to other airplanes, or address a general curiosity, this list provides quick and easy reference to all jet airliners. I think the list will receive frequent views and provide useful information to the public.
Wikipedia has an existing Jet airliner page. This list provides a useful companion link.
There is a significant group of hobbyists, industry historians and airline professionals who find this information useful, as evidenced by magazines such as Airliners and Air Transport World, and websites such as Airliners.net and Professional Pilots Rumour Network.
Many limited lists of aircraft have already been established in wikipedia, including List of civil aircraft, List of military aircraft of the United States, List of experimental aircraft, and other lists too numerous to count.

Again, I appreciate everyone's interest, and I hope this can be developed into a page that is an asset to wikipedia. I welcome any improvements. Regards, Mikepurves ( talk) 19:07, 30 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep No valid reason given for deleting this. The article jet airliner explains what that is, and this list all the ones notable enough to have their own article, along with other useful information. Dream Focus 22:00, 30 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep per all those above me - We're an encyclopedia and this is encyclopedic .... Don't mean to assume bad-faith but I really can't see the point in nominating this.... – Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 05:00, 31 December 2014 (UTC) reply
keep encyclopaedic and all entries are notable. LibStar ( talk) 14:18, 1 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep per all above. This is actually a list I have looked for in the past, so its nice someone has finally put it together. Trackinfo ( talk) 22:55, 4 January 2015 (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. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Bahu Lao, Beti Bachao

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

WP:CRYSTAL. Anupmehra - Let's talk! 09:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra - Let's talk! 09:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra - Let's talk! 09:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep - User has given reference for Bahu Lao, Beti Bachao events organised by VHP. I think this article should exist as there are similar existing artilces on religion like Love Jihad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.193.132.14 ( talk) 10:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Leaning keep - Lots of coverage. See this search. JT_dale^Talk~ 11:17, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

@ JTdale: -Perhaps, you would like to take a look at WP:GOOGLEHITS. Next, concern is not WP:GNG but WP:CRYSTALBALL that states, "Wikipedia doesn't speculate future". WP:RUNOFTHEMILL may also be relevant here. Anupmehra - Let's talk! 17:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

@ Anupmehra: - If you bothered to actually go to my search, you'd see it is not a normal google search so WP:GOOGLEHITS does not apply. It is a Google News search, listing an enormous amount of media coverage on this subject. Also WP:CRYSTAL says Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. Wikipedia does not predict the future. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred.. This clearly blows your argument out of the water, since this event is not speculation that it may exist, it's a confirmed upcoming program verified by many media outlets. Really, I'd recommend you follow WP:BEFORE in future. In addition, please do not accuse editors of vandalism without any proof. JT_dale^Talk~ 05:09, 30 December 2014 (UTC) reply

@ JTdale: -I'm not sure how my previous post accuse you of being " WP:VANDAL". Yes, upcoming campaign, -said to happen sometime next year. It doesn't exist as of now, -said to happen. Most news-worthy events do not qualify for inclusion. Anupmehra - Let's talk! 08:54, 30 December 2014 (UTC) reply

I am not referring to me. I'm not quite sure if your being oblivious or really don't know what I mean every time I post. JT_dale^Talk~ 09:07, 30 December 2014 (UTC) reply

You should have been specific, that's a WP:DUCK case. I've not opened a SPI by now, is just because it is the single instance. I hope, they wont repeat it. Anupmehra - Let's talk! 10:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep - I don't think it is WP:CRYSTAL as there is no speculation in the post - please refer references from independent media who have no interest in speculating. It is also not WP:RUNOFTHEMILL - if it is then by same logic any other article can qualify for same. However as I'm the creator of the post, I'll wait for others view also.Vinod 17:55, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you created the article and when I nominated it for deletion, you removed the tag in this . Right? One person actually can !vote only once. So, I've to strike-through your recent keep !vote. See also, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Anupmehra - Let's talk! 18:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

@ Anupmehra: - What make you think that I removed the delete tag? Anyone which basic understanding of system audit understanding wouldn't do so. I made upfront declaration about me being the creator of the article and would not want to give up my vote - hence I'm removing your "strike-through". Let other folks see the merit along with my declaration and cast their vote.Vinod 18:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Either Keep or Merge with Bajrang Dal. There is certainly a significant amount of coverage so wikipedia should cover this. Am not certain whether it merits a separate article or should be merged. Davewild ( talk) 12:24, 4 January 2015 (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 Got7. § FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply

JB (South Korean musician)

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

At best this person had a minor role or two in a TV show, but he is simply not notable outside of his boy band, Got7. Note, in the sourcing, how ubiquitous allkpop is--it is not a reliable source, but just a gossip/marketing site. Drmies ( talk) 06:50, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (spiel) @ 21:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (notify) @ 21:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Redirect to Got7. Yet another Got7 article. No particular notability outside of his group(s). Most TV appearances are as a member of Got7 and the others aren't notable roles. Dream High 2? That was an idol group vanity series and the songs sung were "character songs," not serious solo material. Many of the sources listed are to allkpop, which in turn link to the artist's official youtube site. Shinyang-i ( talk)
Redirect to Got7 no independent notability Asdklf; ( talk) 23:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Redirect to Got7. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 02:46, 5 January 2015 (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 Got7. § FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:11, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Mark Tuan

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

As a biography this is terrible--there simply is no sourcing for it, and little wonder, since this person is simply not notable outside of the boys group that he is a member of. Drmies ( talk) 06:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (post) @ 21:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (quip) @ 21:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

If he doesn't merit his own article apart from his band, his name is still a reasonable search term so redirect to Got7 (as should be done with all similarly situated band members). postdlf ( talk) 22:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply
- postdlf, given the edit warring and other problems in the K-pop area, on occasion I choose AfD. I'm fine with a redirect, of course. Drmies ( talk) 04:31, 30 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Redirect to Got7. No notability outside the group. -- Random86 ( talk) 01:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Redirect to Got7. No notability outside the group. We're seeing a huge flood of Got7-related articles and a lot of edit warring on their pages. Shinyang-i ( talk) 01:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Redirect to Got7. No notability outside the group. We're seeing a huge flood of Got7-related articles and a lot of edit warring on their pages.( Mrchurang ( talk) 17:20, 1 January 2015 (UTC)) reply
Redirect per above. SmileBlueJay97 talk 10:24, 2 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Redirect per above Asdklf; ( talk) 23:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Redirect. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 02:44, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 01:22, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply

2010 Hebei tractor rampage

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

A WP:MILL case without any lasting effect. Fails WP:EVENT and WP:NOTNEWS.-- 114.81.255.40 ( talk) 03:32, 20 December 2014 (UTC) Completing an AfD request on behalf of 114.81.255.40 -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 17:32, 26 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:48, 26 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:49, 26 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:49, 26 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep Looks like a fairly serious incident to me, comparable incidents in other countries with fewer casualties have survived deletion discussions, see 2014 Glasgow bin lorry crash. PatGallacher ( talk) 20:36, 26 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep - I agree fully with user PatGallacher. Also per WP:GNG.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 22:05, 26 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep A mass murder of 17 people is not "run of the mill" and the choice of weapon and method of carrying out the crime was most unusual. The murders received worldwide attention in reliable sources. I added a source verifying the increase in the final death count to 17, and expanded the article with a description of the events. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:57, 26 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete – Fails WP:EVENT, and is a product of journalism-like sensationalism. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The deaths of seventeen people is quite run-of-the-mill. I suppose Mr Cullen has not opened a newspaper on any given day. Regardless, number of deaths has nothing to do with whether an event is notable. It must have a WP:LASTING historical impact, and it must have WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE in WP:DIVERSE sources long after it has passed. This event does not have these things. A brief spike in interest at the time of the event does not make notability. It most have lasting encyclopaedic significance, and this does not. It is sensational tabloid tripe. Crime is rarely notable. Delete this article. Likewise, the Glasgow article should've been deleted, but people don't care about Wikipedia policies and guidelines these days. That's WP:RECENTISM, pure and simple, and it will be deleted in future. This article must go now. RGloucester — ☎ 06:44, 27 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete: The proof of failure of continued coverage is plain: the only article even mentioning the incident after 2010 (and only a single sentence) is from examiner.com, a site on Wikipedia's blacklist. Nha Trang ^Allons! 21:50, 27 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Comment Here is a survey article Mass murder, shooting sprees and rampage violence: Research roundup that makes it clear that the study of rampage killings is important in academia. Here is a blog post, Guns don't kill people, Massacres do . . which I do not propose for inclusion in any article, but which shows one individual seriously studying various factors related to mass murder, specifically mentioning the Hebei incident in the context of mass killings in China. One function of this encyclopedia is to organize, list, cross reference and categorize articles for the benefit of researchers. This article is an important entry in our existing category "Mass murders in 2010", and ought to be part of a future category "Mass murders in China". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:31, 28 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Comment Having been asked to take a look at Chinese sources for the article I'd say that sufficient significant coverage in reliable sources does exist to establish notability (see this search). The event is unusual because of the tractor, the number of people killed and (from a WP:CSB perspective) the fact that things like this are extremely rare occurences in China, never mind that they are actually reported by state controlled media. There is a secondary alternative to deletion beyond keep, which is a merge with School attacks in China (2010–12). Philg88 ^♦
talk 06:40, 29 December 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, Philg88 ^♦
talk 06:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep There's indeed in-depth coverage on this event. I searched for "河北铲车事件" on Baidu, and have found some reliable sources. Here are a few of them:
- "河北"疯狂铲车"事件浮现谜团" [Mysteries surface in Hebei "crazy tractor" incident]. 楚天金报. August 9, 2010.
- "河北铲车事件死亡人数疑云密布警方涉嫌不作为". 华商报. August 8, 2010.
- "河北铲车撞人事件后续已致11人死30余伤". Phoenix Television. August 3, 2010.
Zhaofeng Li [ talk... contribs... 06:46, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep. Sources indicate notability. Everyking ( talk) 11:28, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep as meets GNG. – Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 16:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply
I don't think there is any doubt that this article meets GNG, and I also disagree strongly that this is a "run-of-the-mill" event; how often do you hear of someone getting drunk and killing a bunch of people with a tractor? My concern is that, for once, people citing WP:EVENT/ WP:NOTNEWS as a reason for deletion do seem to be correct; I'm not seeing any evidence of coverage after the first week or two. All I've seen so far is a Wordpress blog and an Examiner piece. Now, if someone can show a reliable source from 2011 to present that covers this incident in at least some detail, then I would be inclined to vote keep; as it is, I'd consider this a merge with School attacks in China (2010–12), since it is notable to at least some degree. Comparing it to recent events doesn't seem fair, accurate or helpful, since they're usually kept with the comment "come back in six months if there is no evidence of continued coverage". Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:04, 30 December 2014 (UTC) reply
- As this was not a school attack the rationale for this merge escapes me. PatGallacher ( talk) 00:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC) reply

I was going on what Philg88 said, and the fact that the articles link together somewhat. If that's not an appropriate location, then deletion may be necessary, if no proper merge target can be found. I think some content should be merged into Internet censorship in China, since it does seem to be relevant there. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:16, 30 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Lukeno94, with respect, please refresh your memory about WP:NOTABILITY, which says quite clearly that a topic may deserve an article if "it meets either the general notability guideline below or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline". It says either/or rather than "both/and". If this most unusual mass murder of 17 people, reported in many newspapers worldwide, meets the GNG, as it clearly does; then it is perfectly acceptable to disregard the opinions of editors who quite absurdly call coverage of this event "sensational tabloid tripe", when every single solitary legitimate news outlet on the planet would report such an incident in great detail if it happened anywhere near their city of publication. Despite the fact that this particular mass murder happened in a country where the government does its best to suppress and/or "manage" bad news, the coverage still exists. This is a mass murder of 17 people with a bucket loader on the streets of a Chinese town. That's what it is and it stands on its own. It is not a school shooting as no gun and no school was involved. It is not notable as an example of internet censorship as newspapers around the world reported it without mentioning the censorship issue. It is a notable mass murder deserving an article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC) reply

I don't see why you need to prod me like that, since I generally do agree on the NOTNEWS/EVENT versus GNG debates with you. However, this seems to have had all of its coverage within a week, and absolutely nothing since; I'm afraid that it is a textbook failure of NOTNEWS as a result. It does deserve an article, but on Wikinews and possibly the Chinese Wikipedia. The government's censorship is essentially what has caused it to not have any sustained coverage. We may as well scrap NOTNEWS and maybe even EVENT if we aren't going to delete things that clearly do fail to meet them, as they're clearly not reflective of current procedure in that case. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:59, 30 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep Our guidelines require significant and sustained coverage; they do not require that the coverage be in English. Several people have identified such coverage in Chinese. I sense a bit of WP:Systemic bias in the calls to delete this article. If this remarkable mass murder had happened in a Western country I doubt if this article would be questioned. MelanieN ( talk) 15:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC) reply
- Hear, hear! I would add that saying it possibly deserves an article on the Chinese Wikipedia raises a few questions. We are the English-language international Wikipedia, not the Wikipedia of the English-speaking countries. What each Wikipedia regards as the threshold of notability is its own business, which may not be anything to do with the countries where it is based, e.g. slightly oddly Argentine provincial deputies seem to be regarded as inherently notable on the English Wikipedia but not the Spanish Wikipedia. PatGallacher ( talk) 15:38, 30 December 2014 (UTC) reply

The problem I personally have is that there is no evidence of sustained coverage in any language, be it Chinese or otherwise. Every source presented here in Chinese was from that first week, which is no different to the English sources. Also, different Wikis have different notability requirements, and I would guess that they're rather laxer on most wikis than they are on enwiki. I would make the same comment if this had happened in Reading, England, and the coverage had worked out the same way. All we need are one or two sources from 2011 to present, but I can't find any reliable ones, and no one else has presented them. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:14, 30 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep I can see the objections, but there are two separate questions: 1) Continuing coverage 2) Reliable Sources. That is, if I understand the criteria, each source doesn't have to be both continuing and reliable. The article has Reliable Sources, so the question is "Continuing Coverage." Tweaking Philg88's search to exclude "2010" here, I found hits which were hard to interpret, but more than enough to show "continuing coverage" even if they were not Reliable Sources. In addition, the ZH Wikipedia and the Baidu support "continuing coverage." ch ( talk) 20:14, 30 December 2014 (UTC) reply

That's a strange interpretation of policy, and I'm afraid an invalid one. Unreliable sources are completely unusable, and thus cannot be factored into anything; are you seriously suggesting that a Wordpress blog should be used as proof of continued coverage? Because you certainly seem to be. Can you please show some sources from the Chinese Wiki that are from potentially reliable sources, and are from 2011 onwards here? I will then be able to reassess my vote if necessary. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:37, 30 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep - Looks like an interesting article and is unusual, although I'm Chinese, I've never heard of this incident, but it sure isn't run-of-the-mill or stuff like that. Thanks Cullen for telling me. Nahnah4 ( talk | contribs | guestbook) 03:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. Davewild ( talk) 18:52, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Nasty Nasty (band)

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

A sub-group of a K-pop group. The members are non-notable, and the one single they released does not appear to have done very much. Drmies ( talk) 06:32, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (natter) @ 21:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (chat) @ 21:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete. They've had one digital single. Except in exceptional cases, surely that's not enough to merit a Wikipedia article. We all know EVERY release in Korea charts, whether it sells one copy or a million, so technically passes Wikipedia's notability requirements, but we have to use common sense. I looked around the web and seems almost all info "reported" by allkpop, Soompi, etc came from the band's twitter feed, etc. No reliable, independent sources at all. Shinyang-i ( talk) 01:48, 31 December 2014 (UTC) reply
- Comment: Shinyang-i, you've said several times now that every release in Korea charts (I assume you are referring to Gaon Chart, which is the national music chart). That's not actually true, so you shouldn't use that as an argument. There are groups who have no charted songs or albums. -- Random86 ( talk) 08:34, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep. technically passes Wikipedia's notability requirements, but we have to use common sense... So, you are redefining Wikipedia's notability requirements according to your "common sense"? OpenSourceDev42 ( talk) 22:28, 1 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Comment Wikipedia's notability requirements are meant to be subject to common sense. That is stated in the policies. Otherwise every single artist in Korea would pass notability guidelines, which is not the intent of Wikipedia notability guidelines. The spirit of the guidelines is what is supposed to be followed, not the absolute letter. Songs must still meet WP:GNG to be considered notable, and artists must still have significant coverage in reliable, independent sources; Nasty Nasty does not appear to meet those requirements. Did you read the article? Did you find evidence of notability or were you just knee-jerk reacting to phraseology in my comment that you didn't like? You made no comment on the article itself, only on me. Shinyang-i ( talk) 16:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep see #77 they charted. also not a sub-group, this is a special label unit. it'll be a sparse article, but it seems to fit guidelines to me. Asdklf; ( talk) 22:44, 2 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep per Asdklf; charted album SmileBlueJay97 talk 09:11, 3 January 2015 (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. With no WP:NPASR ( non-admin closure) Good afternoon ( talk) 12:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Al Falah College

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

Unsourced article about a school in Pakistan - I could not find independent sources to verify the school's notability other than its existence only. The article currently consists of a list of departments and faculty and a link to the school's facebook page. Hustlecat ^{do it!} 03:07, 15 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete, I could not find any independent source to establish its notability. Besides, there's another Falah College loctaed in India, which should not be mistaken with this article. Mhhossein ( talk) 05:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC) reply

If you can post some of the sources you used to establish that I will add them in to the article Hustlecat ^{do it!} 19:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Thing is, if it's a college or secondary school and it can be proven to exist, then it's pretty much notable. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Drmies ( talk) 19:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Yes, definitely, but I don't know if specific sources for this one have been discussed in the past. Would I just grab info from/cite the school's own website (facebook page in this case?) Hustlecat ^{do it!} 20:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Well, that guideline dictates there be independent sources, so no, that won't do. Drmies ( talk) 00:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC) reply

ok, thanks! I'm finding things like these, which might prove existence on some level but are not really anything to hang an article on: [12] [13] [14]. hopefully someone can pull up something better. thanks again. Hustlecat ^{do it!} 06:12, 19 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:44, 22 December 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, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 06:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. § FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:12, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Abirami Ramanathan

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

Article has not a single independent reliable citations. A quick internet search produced zero hits other than from the site of the subject, or youtube. No indication, from references, of notability. Onel5969 ( talk) 11:47, 15 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:54, 22 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete lacks WP:RS. VanishingRainbow ( talk) 14:17, 22 December 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, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 06:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete An on-line search does not reveal RS and notability. Manzzoku ( talk) 13:47, 30 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete - The subject failed to establish notability. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 13:58, 3 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 02:42, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR ( non-admin closure) Good afternoon ( talk) 12:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Unit (art collective)

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NOTABILITY, but pro rejected as claims to have notable members, so needs a discussion, which seems fair enough. Has been unreferenced and tagged for notability for almost 7 years. Boleyn ( talk) 13:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD ( talk) 13:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC) reply

keep It's a minor topic, but it does have a place. It's like one of those bands like the Crucial Three – almost no influence of itself, but the individual members went on to greater things. Andy Dingley ( talk) 02:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:56, 22 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete: I added a couple of basic links that at least confirm that events occurred but am not finding anything substantial that would indicate critical attention or evaluation of Unit as such. The principals of the group don't appear to have the established notability in their own right which might confer retrospective notability on this group, as suggested above, nor does notability inherit from putting on exhibitions by say John Latham, much of whose career probably preceded the lifespan of the Unit members. Unless someone can identify actual coverage of the group itself, this fails WP:ORGDEPTH. AllyD ( talk) 14:48, 22 December 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, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 06:25, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. Davewild ( talk) 18:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply

SKP Degree College

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

No indication of notability, references are a Facebook page and (what appears to be) the college course guide Primefac ( talk) 13:51, 15 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 14:42, 15 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 14:42, 15 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep. Does appear to exist and as a degree-awarding institution should be kept per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete: agree with nominator regarding complete lack of notability. Quis separabit? 01:49, 27 December 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, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 06:25, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep. References added, exists, WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. May need to be moved though based on naming conventions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 02:41, 5 January 2015 (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. Davewild ( talk) 18:49, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Research Park at Florida Atlantic University

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

No evidence of notability ; essentially an advertisement for the park. DGG ( talk ) 01:43, 14 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 02:32, 14 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete per nominator. ...William 15:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:05, 22 December 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, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 06:24, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete: Promotional and no evidence of substantial coverage in multiple reliable independent secondary sources. My own searches turned up nothing promising. Nothing really that can be merged or saved. Dominus Vobisdu ( talk) 22:52, 3 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete. Fails WP:GNG ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 02:08, 5 January 2015 (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! 07:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Canadian Conference on Artificial Intelligence

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

PROD (albeit not my PROD) was removed by the author. Despite an earlier claim about this being an important conference in Canada, a search failed to find much that was independent. Indeed, there were quite a few hits, but they were all affiliated with the conference or pages by people who participate in the conference. It doesn't help that the article claims that around 500 people attend annually, which for a country like Canada, appears to be rather insignificant. Narutolovehinata5 ^t
c
csd
new 06:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

I find it strange that the Graphics Interface conference (a sister of the AI conference) has a Wikipedia page. The AI conference is 10x bigger. How is this not an important conference in Canada? Some of the brightest researchers present their work here. All research is published in http://www.springer.com/series/1244 and selected works are published in Computational Intelligence. This is not a Naruto convention, so perhaps you would not understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathewk1300 ( talk • contribs) 06:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

What is needed on Wikipedia is significant, independent coverage by reliable sources. Perhaps the convention you mentioned earlier has received the coverage needed to satisfy notability guidelines, which is why it has an article. Narutolovehinata5 ^t
c
csd
new 06:52, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

I will put sources on the original page. In the meantime, I will also delete Naruto conference pages as they seem to progress the edges of society too much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathewk1300 ( talk • contribs) 06:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Mathewk1300, the personal attacks aren't necessary. Narutolovehinata5 simply noticed this article, conducted a search for references and (upon finding insufficient references to justify an article per our inclusion criteria) nominated it for deletion. There's no need for childish references to his username. It won't save this article. Also, have a read of WP:OSE. St★lwart¹¹¹ 11:10, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete - I can't find enough to suggest this passes WP:GNG though I accept there might be scientific publications that could provide us with more. Happy to consider those but for now, we're not quite there in my view. St★lwart¹¹¹ 11:10, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

I did a search using Google News and Google Scholar as well and sadly I couldn't find anything on Google News. As for Google Scholar, there are indeed hits, but these are for papers made during the conference, not about the conference. For a conference that claims to have been existence for 50 years, and in an earlier version of the article, claiming to be a leading conference on artificial intelligence on Canada, the lack of coverage from independent sources is startling. And it's not like it's a niche event either: with an event going on for that long, there should at least be some coverage somewhere by now. But there's little to none. Perhaps the final nail in the coffin is this: the event claims a yearly attendance of 500 people. That's pretty small, and given Canada's population, size, economy, and other factors, it could be said to be quite poor, as the event appears to be a national conference, not a local one where a small attendance like that would be understandable. Narutolovehinata5 ^t
c
csd
new 15:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Appreciate the additional explanation. St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:06, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

This is disgusting. This event has been around for 50 years. While your at it, also delete Graphics Interface please. I will also give you a list of other related events that you can delete as well. Stop this bias on Wikipedia.

I hate to say it, but please read WP:OLDAGE. Narutolovehinata5 ^t
c
csd
new 15:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply
And, again, you seem to be confusing ordinary deletion discussion processes (like WP:CONSENSUS) with some ideological attack on your favourite conference. It isn't. Dozens of things are nominated for deletion every day. We have specific inclusion criteria and longevity isn't one of them. The fact that other related stuff exists is not an inclusion criteria either. Find significant coverage in multiple reliable sources and we'll talk. St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:06, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (prattle) @ 21:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (rap) @ 21:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

You are right - Perhaps it would be a better idea to make a single page for all three conferences. The AI conference is combined with The Canadian Conference on Graphics Interface and the Canadian Conference on "Computer Vision and Robotics Conference". This is actually a tri-conference that has been around exactly 50 years (since 1964). Please see this: http://aigicrv.org/aigicrv2015/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathewk1300 ( talk • contribs) 07:59, 31 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete or merge - This page alone is not noteworthy, but if it can be merged with similar ones, as noted above, then that course should be considered. Kierzek ( talk) 14:11, 31 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:28, 1 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:29, 1 January 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete-- Ymblanter ( talk) 08:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Abortive gasp

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

Short lived band lacking significant coverage in 3rd party sources. Does not meet notabiulity guidelines. Claims of fame and "good airplay" are not supported by references. Contested prod RadioFan ( talk) 14:52, 22 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 15:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 15:03, 22 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete per NBAND. – Chase ( talk / contribs) 02:54, 27 December 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, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 06:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:39, 31 December 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. § FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:12, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Tova Balman

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

Non-notable artist lacking non-trivial support. Did a quick check on the web and there is not much except listings and a couple of brief mentions. No in depth discussion. reddogsix ( talk) 18:16, 13 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:27, 14 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:27, 14 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:27, 14 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:27, 14 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:27, 14 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep Properly sourced (though not all sources are in English) article about an award winning filmmaker and artist, notable enough. Jostain12 ( talk) 00:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete There are only two sources (one was listed twice), and I cannot find others. I translated the source in Hebrew and did not find her name. I did "fix" the references to merge the duplicates. Some more references are needed. LaMona ( talk) 17:44, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply

I've done a little research which produced four more references. Jostain12 ( talk) 09:02, 28 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:28, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete agree with nominator, my searches such as this one of arts news sources and this one of Middle East news sources did not yield any articles, suggesting this subject does not meet the WP:GNG.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 21:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR ( non-admin closure) Good afternoon ( talk) 12:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC) reply

A Gala Christmas in Vienna

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

non-notable album/DVD Walter Görlitz ( talk) 18:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep – It's notable for the stellar cast alone. It also peaked at #4 on Billboard's Top Classical Albums in 1998, still at #10 in September 1999 and #12 in December 1999. -- Michael Bednarek ( talk) 03:03, 15 December 2014 (UTC) reply

PS: The audio and video recordings have been reviewed in many journals, eg Doug Pratt's DVD (vol. 1, 2004), the BBC's Music Magazine (1998), Classic CD, Die Bühne [ de. I think this is the sixth edition of a series of Domingo releases named Christmas in Vienna. -- Michael Bednarek ( talk) 09:25, 27 December 2014 (UTC) reply

As a subscriber to BBC Music Magazine, their reviews are brief and do not constitute sufficient coverage. Which month in particular? Walter Görlitz ( talk) 09:31, 27 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:32, 15 December 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, MBisanz ^talk 04:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete. NALBUM states, "All articles on albums, singles or other recordings must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." I found no coverage for this album beyond a very brief AllMusic review. – Chase ( talk / contribs) 02:49, 27 December 2014 (UTC) reply

7. The recording has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network. – The album is a recording of a live broadcast in 1997, directed by Humphrey Burton. -- Michael Bednarek ( talk) 09:25, 27 December 2014 (UTC) reply

That still requires significant coverage that is independent of the subjects. In other words, it assume that this will meet GNG. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 09:31, 27 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR ( non-admin closure) Good afternoon ( talk) 12:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Kokoro (vocaloid)

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

I don't know about this one. No sources. Google results show questionable sources. But the song is sung by a notable singer. I gave name I gave a link '[[ ]]', and sure enough, it actually went to a page. I think it may need to be turned into a redirect. Thoughts? Mr. Guye ( talk) 04:56, 14 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(
talk |
contribs)} 23:02, 14 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:44, 15 December 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, MBisanz ^talk 04:30, 22 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Weak delete I was going to dismiss this without thought, as just an moderately popular (but good IMO, no less) Vocaloid song. And then ja:ココロ (トラボルタの曲) tells me (with sources [15] [16]) it spawned a stage drama production and a set of novels, which gives me slight second thoughts. I can't say much than this because there is very few precedents on how Vocaloid songs/producers/communities are done in enwp (seemingly very different from jawp). Though the current article is mostly an interpretation of the story told by the lyrics though, and can very easily deserve a minimum of WP:TNT. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi
Yarouin} 07:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 01:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply

In the Sea of Sterile Mountains: The Chinese in British Columbia

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

While I like this book and its contents, it does not meet WP:NBOOK parameters:

"The book has been the subject[1] of two or more non-trivial[2] published works whose sources are independent of the book itself" - the reviews provided are not notable reviews, and two of them at least refer only to t he book itself, not to other sources
"The book has won a major literary award" It has not won a major literary award
"The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable or significant motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement" - the very sources/reviews added by the article creator indicate anything but. In fact, this book is on the grey edge of modern historiography on this subject, in that it is ignored by modern historians; not because its contents are invalid, but because it doesn't have modern-style line-cites and presumes to present the political realities of non-Chinese, which the ethno-histories favoured by the article creator explicitly do not, other than by POV language dismissals and selective tidbits of "things white people said". None of the reviewers used are notable or significant themselves.
"The book is, or has been, the subject of instruction at two or more schools,[5] colleges, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country" - this book may have been part of a course at one of BC's university long ago; it's not now, not that I know of.
"The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is notable by Wikipedia's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study." - no he's not historically significant; more like obscure

That the thrust of the author's selection of comments from the reviews provided is POV and hostile to the book, as is apparently the author who created this article, this article seems to have been created to discredit the book; that this person hasn't even read the book, despite repeated recommendations that he do so, as he could get it on interlibrary loan, and that he's been demanding page-cites on each and every thing I bring up that I know to be in it, is AGF and also a nuisance as he knows I don't a copy of the book and am 10,000 miles or more from anywhere that might have a copy.

I had a look at Category:History books about Canada and none of the major works of BC history - notable and significant ones - do not have articles. This book is rare, out-of-print, and what few reviews there are have big POV/bias issues, it's not a notable or significant work. BUT it does contain details and perspectives which are sorely absent from sino-biased works and also from a fair representation in the negative reviews that have been found; for that, in a historian's terms, it is notable; but it's not in Wikipedia terms, and right now the article is something of a POV palimpsest against the book. Instead of finding dismissive reviews to deride it, the author should READ IT. Skookum1 ( talk) 04:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)}} reply

Keep - The book clearly meets WP:GNG - that requires multiple reliable and independent sources. There are two academic book reviews from the 1970s and the University of Alberta historiography document from the 2000s. If it meets GNG it has notability period. WhisperToMe ( talk) 05:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply
- Reply - the guideline says "two or more non-trivial[2] published works whose sources are independent of the book itself", italics emphasis mine. None are notable reviews or notable publications or authors, and their source is only the book (and their own prejudices against what it says). Skookum1 ( talk) 06:01, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply
  - What is meant is independent of the book itself is that the reviews themselves are not a part of the book. They are about the book but not a part of it. Of course the author is using the book as a source, but that doesn't mean the reviews are actually dependent on the book in that way. When we write articles about films, we include reviews.
  - As for the publications, from my understanding academic publications should be notable. The Journal of Asian Studies has its own Wikipedia page. BC Studies and Past Imperfect (journal) do not but I can check with the Journals WikiProject： Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Academic_Journals#Do_these_two_journals_have_notability.3F.
  - The RX page found one more review from Books in Canada so now it's up to three reviews.
  - WhisperToMe ( talk) 14:54, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply
    - So far on the WikiProject discussion, the respondent believes BC Studies is a reliable source ( See the editorial board) but that Past Imperfect may be tricky to use because (at least at one time) the editors were PhD students. The current website states to see each issue to determine who the editorial team was. WhisperToMe ( talk) 17:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply
    - The 2005 Past Imperfect Issue had this editorial board - Roberta Lexier was the editor. The advisory board has "Dr." titles but the staff don't. WhisperToMe ( talk) 17:17, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep The nom cites NBOOKS, but only the "in a nutshell" template at the top, which stated "published works whose sources are independent of the book itself". If you go down to the criteria itself, this phrase says "published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself", which is not really the same thing (I have corrected this). Having just received the second book review in a peer-reviewed academic journal of one of my own books (which I am proud of but don't feel is particularly notable), I find NBOOKS very permissive. Nevertheless, that's the guideline and we have to apply it. Here we have multiple detailed book reviews in reliable sources, so NBOOKS basically becomes irrelevant, as this meets GNG. -- Randykitty ( talk) 17:54, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (babble) @ 21:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (say) @ 21:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (message) @ 21:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep. This book meets WP:NBOOK as it has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself (as WhisperToMe has pointed out, the nominator has misunderstood what is meant by sources independent of the book). Also, the nominator says "this book may have been part of a course at one of BC's university long ago; it's not now, not that I know of." If it ever was, that would make it notable as well. T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 23:40, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep as it passes WP:NBOOK, per the above comments. -- Calidum 03:07, 30 December 2014 (UTC) reply
- Reply to both the above. It doesn't pass NBOOK. And saying I don't understand "sources independent of the book" is entirely wrong; only one cite mentions other works; it has won no awards, the author is not independently notable or significant, it's not a significant work, and the "if" about it having been a curriculum book (very likely not) is just an IF. Skookum1 ( talk) 03:19, 30 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Please read my above comment on NBOOKS#1 again. Your interpretation is based on incorrect text in the "in a nutshell" template of that guideline, not the guideline itself. Thanks. -- Randykitty ( talk) 10:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep .Clearly meets WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. Book reviews from academic journals are generally considered reliable and independent. The fact that these reviews use the book as referencing only means they are secondary sources, which is exactly what we need.-- 114.81.255.40 ( talk) 17:22, 31 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Comment: User:NQ stated that there are three additional reviews but he hasn't found how to get them online. I am adding them to WP:RX. I would really appreciate getting these since getting all of the perspectives that have been published is very important. WhisperToMe ( talk) 18:19, 1 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep This is kind of tricky, but I'd say the reviews are independent of the book as defined by WP:NBOOK (have a look at the footnotes, they're informative), especially since they're academic, and there are also a fair number of them which increases the likelihood of notability. Someone who was "involved with the book" sounds like it would have been someone involved in the publishing rather than someone who just happened to write an original interpretation of it. Also, the subtitle should be removed from the title per WP:SUBTITLE. ekips 39 05:43, 4 January 2015 (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. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Jim Sterling

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

Insufficient verifiable material to write an accurate biographical article. TS 03:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 03:42, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 03:42, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment: Third-party sources only have to offer "significant coverage" of a subject, not coverage of all the subject's major aspects. These might be useful to establish notability: [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] (this one actually describes why he's notable rather than just talking about him) I suspect more about his life could be gotten from personal blogs that, while not third-party sources, would fill in the missing gaps. Tezero ( talk) 03:06, 31 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Oppose, per sources provided by Tezero. There is apparently significant (enough) coverage of Sterling, and I suggest moving those references to the talk page (though I might try to incorporate some later today). Also, if we can have a (very decent quality) article on Zero Punctuation, we could definitely make a good article for Jim Stirling. ~ Mable ( chat) 07:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC) reply
- I've just added three of these references to the article. It doesn't look amazing, but it's sourced content. ~ Mable ( chat) 09:02, 31 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Oppose. There is plenty to say about this guy and quite a bit that has been said about him. I think it is worthy. Zero Serenity ^{(
talk -
contributions)} 15:48, 31 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep While I am sympathetic to the idea that some article topics that are notable don't have the sources to make really solid articles (BLPs for game dev personnel come to mind) I think there's enough to demonstrate notability as its own piece here, and I don't think there's a better place to fold that content elsewhere. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(
talk) 16:58, 31 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:26, 1 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep - There seem to be sufficient RSes covering the topic to meet WP:GNG. If the article really can't progress beyond Start/Stub class then I'd perhaps be open to the idea of a merge in the future. - Thibbs ( talk) 16:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Weak keep. Good hustle, for those who found sources. The Forbes, Complex paragraph, even TIGS refs look good, but with weak depth. I wouldn't use unvetted sites: gamingaswomen.com (interview) or Gamegrep (which is really a repackaged version of Sterling's own Destructoid article) for notability. Add Tez's Cinemablend and Ars links and we're closer, but Ars has little depth too and my understanding was that Cinemablend is not reliable ( this is the only discussion on it). Withstanding all this, there's enough to write an article. czar ⨹ 17:58, 2 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Thanks to everybody who has worked to find sources. I'm very pleased to say that you have proven me wrong. The article should not be deleted in my opinion. -- TS 12:34, 4 January 2015 (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. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:39, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Cdv Software Entertainment

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

Stub about a video game publisher. No assertion of notability and no attempt to provide evidence thereof. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 09:43, 14 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. ( G· N· B· S· RS· Talk) • Gene93k ( talk) 23:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment This was one of the two German game publishers listed on the Frankfurt Stock Exchange. The business model was publishing PC games developed by third parties. It was successful in the 1990s, but began to lose money and lay off workers around 2005. Went bankrupt in 2011. There is a list of games published here and a detailed history of its activies on the stock exchange here (both in German), and a detailed history of the company on the German Wikipedia. Notability on en Wiki would probably be as the publisher of games with articles. Someone has deleted the list of those games, and the current links are all dead. But if someone wants to recreate the article there is enough material in German. – Margin1522 ( talk) 20:29, 16 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep. Published a few notable games in North America, including Sacred 2: Fallen Angel, which got a bit of coverage: for example, this article from IGN and this announcement from VG247. Their financial troubles also got coverage from VG247. Other brief articles [23], [24], [25], [26]. And here's a bit of an in-depth look: [27]. More available in a WP:VG/RS Google custom search. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 01:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:01, 22 December 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, Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 02:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep. The article needs work, but the sources presented by NRP above show the company is notable. -- Calidum 04:12, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. § FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:13, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Cezar Dior

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

Poorly sourced pornstar bio. Fails WP:PORNBIO without award wins. Fails WP:GNG without significant coverage by reliable sources. A search for coverage yielded only a minor award nomination. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:34, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete BLP in need of much better sourcing. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:42, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete - the article creator is developing a worrying track record of non-notable biographies. St Anselm ( talk) 04:44, 31 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete Does not meet PORNBIO or GNG. Cowlibob ( talk) 14:32, 31 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete, lacks a credible claim of notability. Cavarrone 12:47, 2 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete. Fails WP:GNG ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 01:59, 5 January 2015 (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 Wrong Venue. Please read WP:MERGE on how to Merge - ~~( PanchoS If you're stuck come to my TP,)~~ ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 02:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

I've Merged it for you. – Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 02:42, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Wafaa

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

propose merging with Wafa (disambiguation) as "Wafaa" and "Wafa" are just two minimally different (and often exchangeable) transcription variants. PanchoS ( talk) 01:25, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Speedy close - You are in the wrong venue for merges. This is AfD. JT_dale^Talk~ 02:12, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Dawoodi Bohra. Davewild ( talk) 18:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Fakhruddin Shaheed

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

Self published sources , highly unnotable person belonging to dawoodi bohra, no notable mentions in other sources I checked also has many factual errors, written like Advt Summichum ( talk) 09:39, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 10:14, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:16, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:16, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply

This is article on a saint (11th century AH, 14th century AD) famous amongst Taiyabi bohra for his sacrifice for the cause of religion. He has follower all over the world where Taiyabi lives even amongst Yemeni Bohra.-- Md iet ( talk) 09:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Please refer following for coverage being done on the subject: [28] [29] Publisher General Books LLC, 2010 ISBN 1155549767, 9781155549767

[30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Md iet ( talk • contribs)

well, if there are references, add them to the article, not to the deletion discussion. If the article isn't fixed, it will have to be deleted, but I for the record, in case the page ends up being deleted for being unreferenced, the article can be recreated at any time based on proper references. -- dab (𒁳) 18:06, 26 December 2014 (UTC) reply

fix or redirect to Dawoodi Bohra. The person is already duly mentioned on the Dawoodi Bohra page, so if nobody is up for fixing the bio article, it can be turned into a redirect pending proper development. -- dab (𒁳) 18:13, 26 December 2014 (UTC) reply

~~I think, a redirect to List of Dai of Dawoodi Bohra would be more appropriate. Anupmehra - Let's talk! 13:16, 27 December 2014 (UTC)~~ --redirect to Dawoodi Bohra. Anupmehra - Let's talk! 20:17, 27 December 2014 (UTC) reply

He is not a dai but just a member of that community , hence should be deleted as all references are primary partisan from that sect only Summichum ( talk) 17:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:05, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

The references given by above md iet who evaded topic ban , are all primary self published and hence dont prove notability , the article has various anecdotes which sound as advertisements. Summichum ( talk) 08:18, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

The user md iet was banned mainly because of behavioural evidences and not just ip analysis , both md iet and this are same, this user is misleading with frivolous "simulation", was topic banned also not just because of "claimant" but many other past actions which culminated in a ban, @ Anupmehra: :

/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Md_iet/Archive

Redirect to Dawoodi Bohra. Bladesmulti ( talk) 08:55, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Redirect to Dawoodi Bohra, as the others said. There isn't any proof of notability for this inidividual in and of himself, but since he is mentioned on that page leaving this as a redirect would get users to where they need to read about the general topic. MezzoMezzo ( talk) 03:37, 4 January 2015 (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. § FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Sultana Mahdokht

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

Obvious plagiarism - seems to have been copied near exactly from [40] - possible move to WikiSource? Flamthonas FIrearrow ( talk) 15:59, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:26, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:26, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom - Clearly copied off [41] & reworded here & there, I appreciate the creator had reworded it somewhat but unfortunately it's not good enough here. IMHO I don't think anyone will transfer to WikiSource (I've never used the site in my life so wouldn't know the first thing about transferring there!), – Davey2010 • (talk) 21:28, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep - I'm not overly convinced this should be kept nor do I agree with Plagiarism but at the end of the day we're an encyclopedia and we should have articles on stuff like this, So I'll have to say Keep. – Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 02:36, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Prune and keep -- I accept that we cannot keep plagiarism. However, if she is a saint revered by the Assyrian Church, we ought to have an article on her. I would thus suggest cutting this donw to just the lead and adding an external link to the plagiarised source, by way of reference. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Plagiarism has been removed. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 01:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep. Agree that we should retain articles on saints recognised by legitimate churches. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 00:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep. With plagiarized portion removed, article has no sound basis for deletion. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 01:58, 5 January 2015 (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. § FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Jerry Bergman

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

Fails WP:BIO, WP:PROF, WP:AUTHOR, and WP:FRINGEBLP. Not notable enough for any of these things. Article was recreated out-of-process in defiance of 2009 consensus: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jerry Bergman. jps ( talk) 00:57, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete - still fails to meet our standards for notability, either as an academic or a fringe-theory advocate. -- Orange Mike | Talk 01:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply
DeleteNon notable. - - MrBill3 ( talk) 01:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete: Lack of substantial and persistent coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. Clearly fails WP:PROF by a wide mile. As a fringe figure, he is a minor bit player at best, and earns only a short paragraph in the most authoritative and comprehensive RS book on the topic, and my own searches turned up nothing even remotely promising. Sorry, just not enough in reliable sources to base much of an article on. Dominus Vobisdu ( talk) 02:02, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Oppose:Sorry. Creationists comprise 40 to 50% of 'believers' in the US. All over Wikipedia, you have authors for JFK conspiracies, 9/11 conspiracies, etc. If you prowl around the interwebs you will find creationists websites, linking/commenting about these books and this author. You will find religious programs and websites promoting this author. I think the Young Earth creationists are irrational folks that will not see evidence not matter how clear it is but my thoughts are irrelevant. Based on Wikipedia policy, this author is notable and is a reliable source (FOR CREATIONISTS) and therefore he can have an article. CanadianLinuxUser ( talk) 02:28, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Are there reliable sources which establish the notability of the subject? That is what policy requires and what should be discussed here WP:NOTFORUM. If reliable sources are provided here or added to the article there can be discussion of the notability of the subject, currently there are not adequate sources to meet notability criteria. - - MrBill3 ( talk) 03:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

A simple Google search of the publications will clearly demonstrate that creationists use his work often. "Slaughter of the Dissidents" and "The Darwin Effect" search the titles with the quotes. CanadianLinuxUser ( talk) 11:02, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

The question was whether any RELIABLE sources discuss him. Fringe sources add little, if anything, to notability. Dominus Vobisdu ( talk) 11:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Creationists may be "fringe" groups to you and me, but they still make up 40 to 50% of Americans. Why were the Moon Hoax, 9/11, etc fringe groups allowed on Wikipedia with even less "believers"? CanadianLinuxUser ( talk) 11:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Not because of the coverage they received within the fringe community, but because they received substantial coverage in multiple reliable independent secondary sources from real world scholars and journalists. As does the topic of creationism and many figures in the creationist movement, which is why we have articles about them. The subject of this article, however, has not received substantial coverage in reliable sources, and is therefore not notable according to our policies and guidelines. Dominus Vobisdu ( talk) 11:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment Toledo blade is an RS, albeit not as popular as The New York Times its still a newspaper, although it is a tabloid: The Blade (newspaper).-- Mishae ( talk) 03:59, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Six sentences, only two and a half of which are about the subject, the other four being rather blatantly attributed direct or indirect quotes from what appears to be an interview, but may be the film reviewed. Not very much to write an article on, and way short of substantial coverage in multiple reliable independent secondary sources. Dominus Vobisdu ( talk) 04:50, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Lets ask user @ Randykitty:. Maybe he will shed some light on the topic notability since I can't find his h-index in Google Scholar.-- Mishae ( talk) 05:57, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

I'm afraid I cannot help much. "Bergman J" (or even "Bergman Jerry") gives many results in both GScholar and the Web of Science, but most of that refers to other people (and there are so many of those, that it would take a lot of time to separate out the works of this person). WorldCat shows meager holdings of all of his books, except for one on teaching the evolution/creationism controversy (curiously enough, this is not mentioned in the article), which is in over 200 libraries (for whatever that may be worth). So I cannot come up with any citation data showing notability. Of course, that does not prove there is no notability, but that will have to come through GNG, because I don't see any evidence that Bergman meets any of the criteria of WP:ACADEMIC. For the moment, I !vote Delete. -- Randykitty ( talk) 12:54, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom. Dbrodbeck ( talk) 17:38, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete This article doesn't meet the burden for inclusion. -- Adam in MO Talk 04:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete. The article fails to demonstrate notability. Passing mentions in fringe publications amount to nothing. And incidentally, one of the few sources cited (answersingenesis.org) is not only a questionable source, but entirely failed to support the material it was being cited for. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 16:17, 30 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete based on lack of clearly-established notability. Having said that, at least to my eyes, this article seems to fall somewhere in the range of what might be our biggest and most problematic area of contention, the intersection of what might be called areligious academia and what might be called religious academia. I know that there are at least a few reference books relating to that broad area, like the Encyclopedia of Science and Religion, and I think a few others, and if anyone wanted to get together lists of the topics they give articles to that might help a lot both in terms of being better able to find out which topics are notable in this field, but also which topics are more or less important in that broad area and, thus by extension, provide some sort of outline for the topic which would help make it easier for us to determine which articles to give more weight to, and which topics whose independent notability can't be clearly established might be best discussed in which related notable articles. John Carter ( talk) 23:09, 30 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep 'The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.' WP:AUTHOR He is indeed extensively quoted by creationist and ID peers, which are RS for their circle, which remains substantial in the US and elsewhere (46% of US college grads, 25% post grads [42]). He has written extensively on this and other subjects. Controversy over the undesired skewering of sacred cows is not the same as non-notability. Proper reference to criticism of his position is also needed. Cpsoper ( talk) 21:04, 31 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Please provide a verifiable source for your assertion that Bergman is "an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors". AndyTheGrump ( talk) 21:08, 31 December 2014 (UTC) reply

[43], [44], [45], [46], [47] etc etc, as you rightly pointed out an author is RS for his own opinions, and these two large societies are RS for the view of many thousands of creationists and IDers. See also [48] Cpsoper ( talk) 21:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Not a single one of those "sources" comes remotely close to being reliable, and cannot be used to gauge notability according to our policies, which require substantial coverage in multiple reliable independent secondary sources. Dominus Vobisdu ( talk) 21:31, 31 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Reliable as an opinion for his own peer group, per last reference, I could add the ICR, [49], [50], [51]. Cpsoper ( talk) 21:39, 31 December 2014 (UTC) reply

I think ICR is more reliable than the previous refs.-- Mishae ( talk) 21:54, 31 December 2014 (UTC) reply

ICR and AIG are certainly not reliable sources for anything but their own wild assertions and fantasies about the past. They aren't even reliable sources on the views of Creationists, due to the frequent disagreements and lies between the two.-- Adam in MO Talk 22:02, 31 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Yup - if Institute for Creation Research#Criticism from creationists is correct (it cites sources, though I've not checked them), it appears that creationists have their issues with the ICR too. And I note that Cpsoper still seems to think that Bergmann is a reliable source for the notability of Bergman... AndyTheGrump ( talk) 22:06, 31 December 2014 (UTC) reply

'Bergmann is a reliable source for the notability of Bergman' - evidence? CS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.176.105.133 ( talk) 20:14, 1 January 2015 (UTC) reply

What? I wrote that ' Cpsoper still seems to think that Bergmann is a reliable source for the notability of Bergman' - Clearly implying that (per WP:RS/WP:N) he isn't. This is a matter of policy, and needs no further source. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 22:11, 1 January 2015 (UTC)dn reply

Dear Andy, you do seem to have problems perceiving fine distinctions. All I have claimed from the outset is that creationist groups cite Bergman freely and extensively, demonstrating he is widely regarded by many of them as a cogent and articulate spokesman. Please produce evidence it is otherwise. Now whether a widely regarded advocate for 46% of all US college students' and 25% of postgrads' views is notable or not, especially when is claiming in 300+page book with 68 pages of footnotes that other such advocates frequently face career destruction or the silencing of their best judgement and conscience. In the meantime, speaking a little more personally, and as a long practiced diagnostician may I suggest this for you [52]? BW, Cpsoper ( talk) 22:22, 2 January 2015 (UTC) reply

It is you that is making the claim - and accordingly, it is you that needs to provide a source that states that Bergman is widely read. Which you have yet again failed to do. And no, the fact that "46% of all US college students' and 25% of postgrads" believe something or other is of no relevance whatsoever to this discussion. And as for your 'diagnosis', I have no idea what form of quackery you think you are qualified in, but I suggest you keep your ill-informed opinions to yourself, if only to retain what little credibility you still hold. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 23:34, 2 January 2015 (UTC) reply

How well you have again illustrated several of my points with this last post. I will finish with this, 'it is you that is making the claim', no it is you that is making the claim I asserted 'Bergman was RS for his own notability', remember that is what we were discussing - now, do I really expect an apology...? Cpsoper ( talk) 12:37, 3 January 2015 (UTC) reply

This is an AfD discussion. The issue being discussed is whether Bergman is notable by Wikipedia standards. You have linked several articles by Bergman, suggesting that they indicate his notability - or if that wasn't your intention, why did you cite them? And no, unlike you, with your quack 'diagnosis', I have nothing whatsoever to apologise for. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 00:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete. Clearly not notable. QuackGuru ( talk) 07:46, 1 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete. Doesn't meet notability requirements and appears to only be cited by fringe sources. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 17:40, 1 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:21, 1 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:22, 1 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:22, 1 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:22, 1 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete. I don't think the Stansfield source (which briefly summarizes Bergman's beliefs before suggesting a student exercise comparing them with mainstream biology) is enough by itself, and other than that we have no reliable mainstream sources that we need (per WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE) to counter the fringiness of this, let alone to prove sufficient notability. I don't think the talk.origins and ICR sources are reliable and neutral, and as for the Toledo Blade piece, besides not really having much actual information about Bergman or his beliefs, and taking the fringe side of the issue, it's hard to take seriously when it has solecisms like "doctorate in evaluation". — David Eppstein ( talk) 02:27, 2 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete - no evidence that this person has been the primary focus of reliable independent sources. Wikipedia is not a directory, and a collection of bylines and passing references is not independent coverage. Without proper independent coverage we cannot verify that the article passes foundational policies on neutrality, which are especially important for biographies. Guy ( Help!) 08:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete per WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:PROF, WP:AUTHOR, WP:FRINGEBLP, and probably several other. Simply not shown to be notable enough for inclusion. WegianWarrior ( talk) 09:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 01:50, 5 January 2015 (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. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:11, 2 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Yung Q

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

BLP about an artist with no claim of notability. The only references are a link to a YouTube video, and a writeup by Atlantic Records about an unrelated artist named "Twista", who had an LP released in 1991, when this artist was 3 years old. A quick web search turned up no coverage, only artist pages, albums for sale, and lyrics. This may actually qualify as a Candidate for Speedy Deletion under A7, but I am listing it here so at least some other editor (besides myself) can have input, with the understanding that the outcome could possibly still be speedy deletion. — Josh3580_talk/
hist 18:27, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Just a note, at this point in time, the page author has removed the AFD template from the article multiple times. — Josh3580_talk/
hist 20:14, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete A7 seems fitting as well to me. I don't see much of anything, just a self-made biography on a MTV platform. The only news hits for "Yung Q" are about someone named Quentin, and Twista is another musician entirely. There is also some really bizarre info on the page, like him being up for a apparently major film role and the entire personal life section. From a look at the linked twitter account, the handle "legitballin41" is used by Quesada, and this is also the account here on Wikipedia that created this article. At best this seems WP:TOOSOON. Cannolis ( talk) 18:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete: A WP:SPA article about a subject on whom there appears to be no evidence of meeting any WP:MUSICBIO criteria. AllyD ( talk) 08:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete -Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Anupmehra - Let's talk! 11:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete as non notable muscician -Fails MUSICBIO & GNG. – Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 16:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

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

Videos

Websites

Encyclopedia

Facebook