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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:52, 15 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Group-decision support systems

Group-decision support systems (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Not a notable topic, due to lack of coverage — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1292simon ( talk • contribs) 23:55, 7 June 2014‎ (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:54, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:55, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:55, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete'. Vapid management babble. Xxanthippe ( talk) 02:31, 8 June 2014 (UTC). reply
• Delete - Promo bs. →Davey2010→ →Talk to me!→ 05:11, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete - or redirect to Team work, if we must. Bearian ( talk) 17:15, 11 June 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. Despite the fact that the article has only been discussed for five days, I am closing it as delete since this is a clear WP:BLP violation. (One can consider it as WP:SNOW). It mixes two individuals with similar names (both notable per WP:ACADEMIC), and the creator clearly is not competent enough to remove the problems. Since we are talking about notable subjects, there is no prejudice against recreation, but (a) recreates article(s) should not contain BLP violations, and the notability must be demonstrated.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 06:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Alexey Gorshkov

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

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

Deletion requested by Subject at OTRS ticket 2014060210001421 because "almost every sentence in the article is either false or nonsensical"  Ronhjones   ^(Talk) 23:35, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Comment the part of the article that I ran through verification was cogent and verified (although it may be nonsense to a physicist, I'm not one). The author of the article indicates on the user talk page a wikibreak with a return on 10 June. -- Bejnar ( talk) 01:03, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:51, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:51, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:51, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:52, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete The text of the article does indeed contain a very large admixture of garbage physics and makes me wonder if it is a subtle attack page. Although the author's h-index?? (question about identity) is high enough to pass WP:Prof#C1, I am inclined to agree with the OTRS and delete without prejudice for later recreation. Xxanthippe ( talk) 02:30, 8 June 2014 (UTC). reply
• Comment If the author of the page would like to keep it, a much shorter page (like this one - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ana_Maria_Rey - for example) would be much more appropriate... (comment by subject) Avgorshkov ( talk) 03:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• In this case, I'd be happy if you'd be willing to edit down the article into the facts that seem relevant to you (I don't think there's much fear of a biased article emerging if most of the work is trimming). I'd vote delete only because of your request, and keep if you think it should stay. Notability is established. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 20:14, 9 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• • Editing your own Wikipedia article is the best route to get laughed at by fellow physicists, so I'd rather not edit it myself. Avgorshkov ( talk) 18:48, 11 June 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Well, I didn't expect that by my arrival home, I will be greeted with deletion of well notable individual. I personally begin to believe that OTRS team issued a false deletion request since non of the article is false or senseless. First of all, the article is about physicist, and we do need to write on their discoveries, (i.e. Albert Einstein and Isaac Newton have their discoveries being mentioned). Maybe the discoveries are broad? Second, calling (or suspecting that the article is a "subtle attack page", without providing a diff) is in violation of good faith. Third, calling the subjects' discoveries "garbage", is another violation of good faith, because as a son of a scientist and a Wikipedian, I wouldn't call a single scientist "garbage" (unless the h-index is low). Fourth, I lack of knowledge in physics myself, but I wrote the article solely based on the h-index. For further info, I would suggest talking to user @ Randykitty:.-- Mishae ( talk) 13:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC) reply

I did not call the LP's discoveries "garbage". I called the material written about them by the creator "garbage". I remind the creator that there are provisions to revoke the editing privileges of people who are unable to edit Wikipedia competently. Xxanthippe ( talk) 05:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC). reply

As a separate note: I wrote many articles on various academics and athletes, but my work was never called "garbage", "nonsense", or "false". Due to the lack of info when it comes to academics, we as Wikipedians need to rely at least on secondary sources, and that's what I did. Academics are usually not covered by third-party sources unlike athletes or politicians. I personally believe that the article should remain as is, because I don't see anything wrong with it. It have information which is cited and have 16 refs which more then enough.-- Mishae ( talk) 17:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC) reply

O.K. I have added 2 Russian-language sources, but that's as far as it will go. So, in my humble opinion, I think people should reconsider and vote Keep, per notability guidelines.-- Mishae ( talk) 18:57, 10 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete. I spent considerable time on this one, scratching my head, doing google searches with various combinations, rethinking things. My sense is, if there is a Wikipedia for physics, he belongs there. Clearly he is a productive academic, with numerous well-cited papers (although most citations list him as one of many academics.) The article in its current form is almost all primary research, discussing his papers, his findings, and as such constitutes original research. So, essentially, the article is a CV, a resume. What we really need here in Wikipedia is a secondary source to examine his work, discuss it in detail, explain what it means, how it affects people, and after looking through ten SERP pages, I did not find that. That does not mean it does not exist, but that's what we need: write-ups in Popular Science, mainstream newspapers, Discover magazine, with sharp science writers making sense of it, or other physicists discussing his work, so that people such as myself can begin to grasp it, to help the topic meet the general notability guideline. When this happens, we can write an article which says subject X is notable for ... and be able to write something other than he cranked out 100+ papers with many other physicists. Reluctantly, I vote delete, but in future, I hope to see this subject back in Wikipedia.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 22:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC) reply
  • I added 2 mainstream sources, although Russian, it makes him notable. I don't see original research here, because his papers are considered to be secondary, not primary sources. Somebody mentioned to me that original research is when you write something, and live sensible info refless, now here, everything is cited.-- Mishae ( talk) 22:24, 10 June 2014 (UTC) reply
    • It took me a year or so until an admin schooled me in the meaning of original research. I wrote a huge long article which got deleted, and I fussed about the deletion, and in the back-and-forth, the admin was gracious enough to explain this subtle but important concept. Essentially, when an academic publishes a paper, that is his or her original research. It originated with that person. So, in this case, his papers are primary research. What we need is someone once removed from that, to comment on it, preferably in a peer-reviewed publication, when facts are checked, who can comment objectively and reliably about what it means, so we can make sense of it, to have some perspective; that is the idea behind secondary sources. Then, we could write a good Wikipedia article which maybe people could understand.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 23:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Quite correct. That is why citations in databases like Google scholar are so important. The subject achieves notability from these but the article is so poorly written that WP:TNT. Other articles written by the creator, who appears to have an inadequate grasp of both physics and written English, need to be looked into. Xxanthippe ( talk) 00:05, 11 June 2014 (UTC). reply

@ Xxanthippe: If Google Scholar citations are important (and all of my articles related to physics have them), what's the issue? Previously all my articles were based on Google Scholar and I got schooled for writing sub-stub articles. So, to make the article more in depth I began using journal articles (since CV wont cut it either). As far as grammar goes, yes, English is my second language, and I am sorry if it hurts Wikipedia image. All that I am trying to do is to write articles on notable people, that's all. You don't need to delete an article, just fix it, and it will hopefully stay.-- Mishae ( talk) 00:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• • • • Well, its not necessarily being written by him, it is published by notable scientific journal such as APS and various Physical Reviews. Maybe I should rephrase it by saying that his paper appeared in such and such journal? But, I got schooled by someone here about it, saying that the way how it sounds, it looks like peacock words. So, now I am confused about what to do, because academics are quite hard, and are of my interest since there is a small amount of them on Wikipedia. I wiil be happy to search for more refs, but for such I need a Russian user who is interested in physics. I can check WikiProject Russia, maybe folks there are keen to help???-- Mishae ( talk) 23:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Also, I would like @ Avgorshkov: to elaborate on which parts of the article in his opinion were false, or didn't made sense. Keep in mind that my native language is Russian, so if I miss interpreted something, I hope you will help me fix it. As a side note: I wrote the article on the subject solely based on the h-index and I didn't knew of subject existence until a friend of mine (also a Russian physicist), gave me Optics and Photonics News magazine where in the end of the year 2013, gospodin (Russian for Mr.) Gorshkov wrote one of his discoveries. If not for that, no one would have known of him.-- Mishae ( talk) 13:35, 11 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• • @ Mishae: First sentence: at the moment my middle name is incorrect (it confuses me with somebody else). I have only 45 peer-reviewed articles (not 100 - Google Scholar lists some other stuff that's not peer reviewed articles) - check out my cv in the people page of http://groups.jqi.umd.edu/gorshkov/home . h-index is somewhat exaggerated (I think it's more like 22). Second sentence: I have nothing to do with Nizhny Novgorod. I am here: http://groups.jqi.umd.edu/gorshkov/home. Third sentence: I've never studied at Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology. Peyronel was and Liang is an MIT student with Vuletic - not Harvard students with Lukin. It's also kind of random to mention them here. Fourth sentence: "of which he became a fellow" is funny - I was just there on a postdoc fellowship for the entire time. Fifth sentence: kind of correct, although I'm really hired by NIST, but I do work at JQI. Sixth sentence and on: the August 21, 2007 discussion is the work of somebody else. And then pretty much the entire discussion of physics is unintelligible either for physics reasons or English reasons or both (and was a source of a lot of entertainment for my colleagues). E.g. ""photon retrieval in its free space and its storage there" makes no sense either physics-wise or English-wise, I never wrote anything about "hamiltonian vector fields" or "chemical polarity", Ref 12 is a theoretical work (not experimental), etc... etc... etc... The section on meetings is particularly inappropriate (and also full of nonsense like the reference to wrong John Bollinger and the fact that the two randomly chosen talks were not even given by me) - all physicists go to conferences and give talks - there is nothing special in this. In conclusion, I'm grateful for your kind attention, but unfortunately the main result of this article was that it provided ample entertainment for my colleagues... That's why I asked for the deletion of the page. If you really want to keep the page, something short of this kind - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ana_Maria_Rey - would be much more appropriate... Avgorshkov ( talk) 19:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• • • @ Avgorshkov: O.K. How would you spell your middle name? So, I come to expect that in fact I wrote an article on a different Alexey Gorshkov??? I never knew that there were two physicists with same name and last name! Like, the one here says that he works for Нижнегородской госуниверситет им. Н.И. Лобачевского (English: N. I. Lobachevsky State University of Nizhny Novgorod) and that in 1990 he came to one of the rectors at the Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology. Ref here: http://chel.kp.ru/daily/23979/262305/. Also, please except my apology since I made a mock out of you, even though my article was in good spirits. Also, you are still qualified for notability because under our guidelines, an academic with an h-index 18 and above is passable for an academic, and Wikipedia do rely exclusively on Google Scholar, Web of Science and ResearcherID, to name a few. We don't however take CV in a consideration as reference because its primary, while your journals are considered secondary and the Press (if you have been mentioned like in New York Times or something will be essential third party sources, and are valued by us. :)-- Mishae ( talk) 21:11, 11 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• • • • @ Mishae: My middle name is Vyacheslavovich, but I rarely use it - I just use the middle initial V. Yeah, the references above about Nizhny Novgorod and about Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology are about somebody else. I understand that you didn't mean any harm - no worries. But I do know that some of my colleagues at other universities had research group meetings, during which the wikipedia page was projected on a big screen and laughed at at length :) Avgorshkov ( talk) 21:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• • • • • Again my apologies, although I am happy that I gave you and your group a good laugh, through I am sorry it was during one of your meetings, that might be embarrassing. O.K. So, I will clean it up a hair bit, so that it wont be about you, because most refs are Russian either way.-- Mishae ( talk) 23:27, 11 June 2014 (UTC) reply
          • Well, that was not my group meeting - that group meeting was in a completely different university in Colorado; I wasn't there and I found out about it from a friend. I suspect there were other similar occasions around the world :) Avgorshkov ( talk) 01:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment. The current article is essentially a Wikipedia contributor, making a case that subject X is notable, by building from primary sources, essentially, making an original argument. What Wikipedia needs are Wikipedia contributors quoting secondary sources, reflecting what they say. Is the distinction clear?-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 14:02, 11 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Well isn't journals are secondary sources??? Like, lets ask user @ Ironholds:, because he said to me that journals are considered to be secondary sources. Maybe he didn't knew, maybe I. As far as your first sentence goes: The current article is essentially a Wikipedia contributor, making a case that subject X is notable is actually should be WP:COI because subject X is the contributor to the current article's talkpage. Lucky, the subject haven't started editing it. According to WP:COI the subject can't edit an article about himself, which makes me wonder why user @ Mscuthbert: wants the subject to edit it his way saying next: if you'd be willing to edit down the article into the facts that seem relevant to you... And as far as his opinion goes: I don't think there's much fear of a biased article emerging if most of the work is trimming, I end up wondering have you considered the fact that if we will trim it, we will have a "skeleton" of an article? Like, we suppose to expand them, not trimming. Plus, if we will play the subject X's way, it will be the end of our project!-- Mishae ( talk) 17:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Journals are secondary sources. That doesn't solve for the fact that your long explanation of what the journal article says and means is original research. Ironholds ( talk) 20:24, 11 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Uh no. Journals can be secondary sources, but for many statements journal articles are very much primary source. (Which can be OK to use, but with appropriate care.) T R 20:35, 11 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Comment. The more that this BLP is delved into the more of a mess it appears to be, including confusion between different persons. The physics parts of the BLP are still drivel. I repeat my suggestion that the BLP be deleted without prejudice against later recreation with the proviso that its creator has no more to do with it. Xxanthippe ( talk) 00:00, 12 June 2014 (UTC). reply
  • Keep I cleaned up a mess, and yes, I discovered that there are two physicists with the same name and same last name. Originally my idea was to write an article based on the h-index. But since there are two of them (one is Alexey Vyacheslavovich Gorshkov and the other is Alexey Vladimirovich Gorshkov), the latter of which became known in the Russian press (check sources), I became to aware that the secondary sources are belong to him, so I will live them, and remove the ones which have to do with the first one.-- Mishae ( talk) 00:32, 12 June 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Comment @ Mishae:Since you are focusing now on Alexey Vladimirovich Gorshkov, don't forget to remove references to my work, which are currently references [4-10], and the reference to the website of my research group (at the bottom of the page). I also wouldn't be so sure that Ref [3] is about the same guy - the guy in Ref [3] had Dubna affiliation in 2007. Avgorshkov ( talk) 01:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC) reply
      • @ Avgorshkov: Where did you got that information from, I am curious?-- Mishae ( talk) 01:37, 12 June 2014 (UTC) reply
        • @ Mishae: His affiliation is listed at the bottom of this page - http://journals.aps.org/prc/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevC.76.021605 . Also he is 4th author there out of 20 (first and last author are the main ones), so this paper is certainly not worth mentioning even if it is his. I would also check very carefully whether the first two references are about the same person. And even if they are, I have serious doubts about whether this person is worth of a wikipedia entry, but that's not for me to decide. Avgorshkov ( talk) 02:02, 12 June 2014 (UTC) reply
          • @ Avgorshkov: Question, is it possible for us to exchange Skype or e-mail addresses, because I am still planning on writing more articles on physicists and would be happy for any future advice. Plus, that way we can speak our native language, and maybe come to a better understanding of each other. I will be glad to have a future professor as my friend. -- Mishae ( talk) 02:08, 12 June 2014 (UTC) reply
            • @ Mishae: My email is available on the website of my research group. However, as I lead a sizable research group of postdocs and graduate students, I'm afraid I won't have time to help you with your work. Avgorshkov ( talk) 04:29, 12 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete: If I were the subject of an article consisting of such pseudo-physics rubbish, I would be very insulted. Remove it as a violation of WP:BLP, if nothing else. JRSpriggs ( talk) 04:37, 12 June 2014 (UTC) reply
  • @ JRSpriggs: I agree with this characterization of the current state of the page (and of its original state, in which I was the insulted subject :)). Avgorshkov ( talk) 05:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: per my previous comment. Avgorshkov ( talk) 05:28, 12 June 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. A10 as duplicate, and also as pure POV-pushing pointyness The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:13, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply

List of World War II aces from Czech Republic

List of World War II aces from Czech Republic (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Double with List of World War II aces from Czechoslovakia. Part of a POV-war to create the state of "Czechia" The Banner  talk 23:03, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Speedy delete Per A10. 117.79.232.182 ( talk) 23:31, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Speedy delete Agree with The Banner. -- Kndimov ( talk) 00:57, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete There were no aces from the Czech Republic in WWII. There were some airmen fighting under British command, under the banner of the Czechoslovakian government in exile in London, and there were probably some from Bohemia and Moravia who fought for Germany. I do not think that there were any in the original resistance to the German invasion, the time was too short. -- Bejnar ( talk) 01:17, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:46, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:46, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:47, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:47, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete Per nomination and comments above. -- Jersey92 ( talk) 01:56, 8 June 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. ( WP:SNOW). ( Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica ¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:48, 12 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Alejandro Saldaña Villaseñor

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

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

Fails WP:NPOL. Mr. Guye ( talk) 22:37, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Not only do you not understand the policy you are citing (the bit about "members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature"), you are also being disruptive in nominating the article within a few minutes from creation. -- Hegvald ( talk) 00:11, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Keep passes WP:NPOL, he was the member (deputy) from Michoacán in the LIX Mexican Legislature from 2003 to 2006. he was succeeded by Antonio Soto Sánchez of the PRD. In 2011 he ran as the PRI candidate for head of the municipal council of La Piedad, he lost to Hugo Anaya Ávila, the PAN candidate. -- Bejnar ( talk) 01:32, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:41, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:42, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Speedy Keep , since the subject passes WP:NPOL. The nom should cease these disruptive bad-faith nominations. -- 101.117.3.35 ( talk) 11:35, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Looks to satisfy WP:NPOL as a member of a national legislature. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 13:37, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep - As above PASSES NPOL so thus no valid reason given. →Davey2010→ →Talk to me!→ 16:11, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Clearly meets WP:POLITICIAN, which the nominator, despite citing it, evidently has not actually read. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 16:03, 9 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Strong Keep a member of the national congress of Belize is notable. A member of the national congress of Mexico, with over 100 million people, is without question notable. It is shocking that we did not have an article on this person until very recently. This article probably needs to be significantly expanded, and to draw on many more sources from Mexico, it clearly should not be removed. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 23:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Speedy keep, this is just disprutive. The article is a clear-cut case of notability within the lines of WP:POLITICIAN. -- Soman ( talk) 19:59, 11 June 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. ( WP:SNOW) ( Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica ¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:13, 12 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Eduardo Alfonso Sánchez Hernández

Eduardo Alfonso Sánchez Hernández (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Recently created BLP with one source. Though it does have a claim to notability, I don't think it fulfills WP:NPOL. Mr. Guye ( talk) 22:35, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Have to repeat my comment from another nomination of yours: Not only do you not understand the policy you are citing (the bit about "members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature"), you are also being disruptive in nominating the article within a few minutes from creation. -- Hegvald ( talk) 00:12, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:37, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:37, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Speedy Keep , since the subject passes WP:NPOL. The nom should cease these disruptive bad-faith nominations. -- 101.117.3.35 ( talk) 11:35, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep. A member of a national legislature. WP:NPOL isn't just for heads of state. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 13:43, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Speedy keep, per Hegvald. Thanks, Lixxx235 ^{Got a complaint?} 14:19, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep - As above PASSES NPOL so thus no valid reason given. →Davey2010→ →Talk to me!→ 16:11, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Clearly meets WP:POLITICIAN, which the nominator, despite citing it, evidently has not actually read. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 16:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep, unequivocally passes WP:POLITICIAN, nominator should read WP:BEFORE as well. -- Soman ( talk) 19:43, 11 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Keep Members of national legislatures are notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:27, 12 June 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 g2, test page. NawlinWiki ( talk) 01:25, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Socretes Okafor

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

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

Unambiguously, this article is at least in the wrong namespace. But I think that we should WP:USERFY it because it looks like it was created in WP:GOODFAITH. Mr. Guye ( talk) 22:30, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Speedy delete. It's a test page at best, and considering the editors other edits, more likely to be vandalism. No search engine hits on /Socr[ae]tes Okafor/ as far as I can see.  — SMALL JIM  22:40, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Speedy delete Obviously test page. Widr ( talk) 22:52, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Speedy delete Test page. EricSerge ( talk) 23:28, 7 June 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 - clear case of WP:SNOW, also it is worth noting that article has also been considerably expanded since nomination. ( non-admin closure)-- Staberinde ( talk) 16:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Gryta Church

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

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

Whether or not the implied longevity of the subject could be called a "significant claim of notability" is ambiguous. Plus, there is one source, meaning that the article fails WP:V. Mr. Guye ( talk) 22:09, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Your claim as to what the WP:V policy implies is nonsense. As for the subject, Gryta Church is a listed building from before or about 1200 (earliest parts Romanesque, next building stage dated to abt. 1250-1350), as indicated by the source in the article. The English Wikipedia tends to respect listings of this sort, even when it happens to be the oldest building in Podunk, North Dakota, dating from 1882 or so. More sources exist, such as this one (originally authored by a now deceased but well-known Swedish art historian), this one (by a Ph.D. in Musicology) or this one (by a youngish Ph.D. in Economic History). -- Hegvald ( talk) 23:59, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:35, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:35, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:35, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Strong keep per User:Hegvald. Besides, Gryta preserves a collection of paintings dated to the year 1487 which may have been made by Albert the Painter ( Albertus Pictor), simply the most famous late medieval Swedish painter. Listing articles for deletion based on personal judgement is a non-collaborative procedure that hinders the project. Krenakarore ^TK 04:32, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep This is a church that is included on the website of the Swedish National Heritage Board. Instead of being deleted, this article about a historic church should be expanded. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam ^Talk 04:49, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Strong Keep - Nonsensical nomination - It needs expanding not deleting. →Davey2010→ →Talk to me!→ 05:14, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Strong keep per Hegvald. Nom has completely failed to do a WP:BEFORE check. -- 101.117.88.68 ( talk) 06:16, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep Well sourced and nicely written. OccultZone ( Talk) 16:04, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Strong Keep per Davey et. al. Inherently notable.-- Charles ( talk) 08:36, 9 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Of course a medieval church is notable. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:55, 9 June 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 wrong venue. Take it to WP:RfD. ( non-admin closure) Ansh 666 02:03, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Evan Rachel Wood on Little Secrets

Evan Rachel Wood on Little Secrets (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

unlikely search term Kintetsubuffalo ( talk) 21:44, 7 June 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, though some concerns remain. Mojo Hand ( talk) 04:28, 16 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Matthew Kelly (speaker)

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

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

I'm not certain about his notability. The sources are largely not independent of him. He has a NYT bestseller and I've found this and this but those are closer to ads than anything independent. Ricky81682 ( talk) 21:04, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Weak Keep/Ambivalent - I've been following this article for a little while since a few editors with clear COIs came by to edit it. I'm kind of on the fence, but the person does seem notable enough to keep as an article (though better sources are needed). It's not quite NUKEANDPAVE territory since I gutted it of the horribly POV and SOAP stuff back in April. EvergreenFir ( talk) 23:41, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Greetings. I received notice regarding potential deletion of the entry for Matthew Kelly. If accepting recommendations... It would seem relevant, at the very least, for any successful author to be worthy of an entry. That, along with Kelly's significant activity as a speaker are also quite relevant.

I'm not sure if motivation to delete the article was inspired by efforts from Kelly's staff to modify the article, but I hope this is not the case. In fact, their effort to understand and work with Wikipedia editors appears very genuine (see Matthew Kelly / Talk page). I believe their contributions would do a great deal to improve the quality of the article. Yobbo14 ( talk) 00:21, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply

No, it was not. What would be helpful was if someone could find 'independent' sources that discuss Kelly. For example, I added this magazine interview which is the only link that isn't from Kelly himself, a business of his or someone marketing his stuff. The staff should be able to find interviews, newspaper press articles, something that isn't from him himself discussing him. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 03:18, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Good morning. I have plenty of outside resources that can be used in this article. I've listed a sampling here. The two that were referenced above are in fact outside sources for local newspapers (wearecentralPA.com and auburnpub.com). These newspapers are not affiliated with Matthew Kelly or Dynamic Catholic. Here is a sampling of other notable outside sources available. The sources that follow are not affiliated with Matthew Kelly or Dynamic Catholic. here here here here here here here here Please let me know what else I need to provide to indicate Matthew Kelly's notability. -- Jenna at DCI ( talk) 13:52, 9 June 2014 (UTC) reply

I'll review in more detail but the newspapers, this and this among others are basically just advertisements. I don't see any actual information from those newspapers that could be added to the article (that he spoke at various places is not really information). I already added teh American Catholic information. This is basically a blog but more importantly, has no details that can be added to the article. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 06:57, 10 June 2014 (UTC) reply

What are you looking for to indicate notability? If you tell me what you are looking for, I will find the necessary sources to cite. -- Jenna at DCI ( talk) 15:15, 10 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Book reviews are the best way to establish notability of an author. The source of the book review has to be "reliable", not just blogs or amazon customers, rather published magazines, newspapers and other reliable institutions. I found some here: [1] [2] [3] .. but more would help. -- Green C 20:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:21, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:21, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:22, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:22, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:22, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Comment - in a series of recent afds, we have come to a consensus that having a Times bestseller does not confer automatic notability. Bearian ( talk) 17:17, 11 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep per AUTHOR, book reviews. I've listed three book reviews above but am sure there are more as he has books that have sold well. The major books are Rediscover Catholicism, The Rhythm of Life, The Dream Manager and The Seven Levels of Intimacy. I'm also swayed by the comment "Internationally known Catholic speaker and author Matthew Kelly" by a publication of the Archdioceses of St. Louis. [4] -- Green C 20:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:51, 15 June 2014 (UTC) reply

D. M. Delgadillo (Poet)

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

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

Does not seem to pass WP:AUTHOR, most links found are to sales sites or are post from the subject or close relations (friends, etc.) ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 20:41, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:20, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:20, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:20, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete No independent sourcing per WP:GNG. The authors sole book on Amazon is self-published (Create Space). -- Green C 20:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Zero RS's offered or to be found. Self-published poetry, self-published WP entry. -- Hobbes Goodyear ( talk) 16:37, 14 June 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 06:30, 14 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Kotara South FC

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

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

Unreferenced article about a football club. I can find no reliable sources covering this club. It appears to be a local junior club based on this. Whpq ( talk) 20:26, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:18, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:18, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:18, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:18, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete as non notable football club. →Davey2010→ →Talk to me!→ 05:16, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Can't find any evidence of significant coverage and of course local junior clubs are pretty much never notable. Doubt even the league it belongs is notable to be honest. Jenks24 ( talk) 13:35, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 12:01, 9 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete - no evidence of notability. Never appears to have played in a national competition. Fenix down ( talk) 15:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete - no evidence of notability. -- Yacatisma ( talk) 08:12, 12 June 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. Go Phightins ! 21:46, 15 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Gwen Chua

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

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

Fails WP:BIO. Magog the Ogre ( t • c) 19:40, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:15, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:15, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete - I'm not seeing coverage to establish that this person meets WP:GNG or WP:BASIC.  Gongshow    talk 18:02, 10 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Do not delete - this article is for people to find out more about the person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katerina64 ( talk • contribs) 03:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia is not for indiscriminate promotion of an individual. They need to have notability. Read WP:PROMOTION and WP:GNG . Cowlibob ( talk) 10:55, 11 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete Unsourced wiki of a non-notable individual. Cowlibob ( talk) 10:49, 11 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Additional Comment This article is a relisting of another article Gwen Chua Xue Qiu which was speedy deleted under A7. Cowlibob ( talk) 10:01, 14 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 15:50, 15 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Tablet PC Input Panel

Tablet PC Input Panel (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Article's subject fails to meet Wikipedia notability guideline. Codename Lisa ( talk) 15:24, 29 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:03, 30 May 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 19:18, 7 June 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. Clearly Original research DGG ( talk ) 05:26, 15 June 2014 (UTC) reply

UnShuffle sort

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

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

Algorithm of dubious notability. Mentioned superficially in the DADS (see References), but otherwise only in what appears to be a Letter to the Editor of Computer Language Magazine, where it was initially published. ACM counts no citations for the original. QVVERTYVS ( hm?) 19:12, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:06, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:06, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep: I am the author/inventor of Unshuffle and the author of the Wikipedia entry. I can provide a copy of the original Computer Language Volume 3, Number 11 November 1986 article galley pages, an image of the issues cover highlighting UnShuffle as the feature article, the Table of Contents page, and the article pages. However, as the originator of the algorithm my own provenance is irrefutable as I can provide working source code for the sort in multiple languages and for a working file sort utility using the UnShuffle sort as its basis for processing input to sorted output. The wikipedia article discusses the algorithm in detail and is an update of the original version of the algorithm presented in Computer Language which eliminates worst case behaviors described in the article. -- Akagel ( talk) 22:13, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• In other words, the article presents original research, entirely counter to Wikipedia policy. QVVERTYVS ( hm?) 11:05, 9 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete The prior comment from User:Akagel is basically an admission that he is publishing his updated sort information in Wikipedia for the first time. Wikipedia is clear: No original research. If User:Akagel sees this message, I STRONGLY encourage him to submit his algorithm for publication in a reputable journal, preferably linked to a an academic programming or computing conference. I am a computer scientist and would take a keen interest in seeing an article published on any novel sort algorithm, but as a Wikipedian, I cannot support this article at this time without it being published, as a juried article, somewhere else first. (letters to the editor are not really a good reference, since they are not edited or juried). In the best case, after an article appears in a journal, another author publishes an article that references this algorithm and demonstrates that it is valuable and notable. THAT article would be a good basis for a Wikipedia page. Nickmalik ( talk) 17:34, 12 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:47, 15 June 2014 (UTC) reply

List of Precision Bass players

List of Precision Bass players (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

List with no discernible criteria. Almost completely unreferenced, and a chore to "weed" for new non-notable and unreferenced additions. Because professional musicians may choose to play any number of brands and models of instruments through their career, it is difficult to establish a meaningful criteria inclusion in such a list. Mikeblas ( talk) 18:58, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:04, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:04, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Agree with nom. ♫ Cricket02 ( talk) 18:08, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom and my commentary here. St★lwart ¹¹¹ 01:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:47, 15 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Rocky Mark Lynch

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

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

Member of R5 (band), but I couldn't find evidence of independent notability. Attempted redirect to the band article was reverted by article creator. Note: Rocky Lynch already exists as a redirect to R5 (band). I suggest that if the article is kept that it be moved to the shorter title. -- Finngall ^talk 01:33, 30 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions OccultZone ( Talk) 06:02, 30 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:25, 30 May 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete until reliable sources are provided. Subject is notable but sources need improved. Meatsgains ( talk) 17:53, 30 May 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 18:50, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Subject fails to meet WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST, or any of the other relevant notability criteria. - Aoidh ( talk) 03:10, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was KEEP - The numbers lean this way, but the primary reasons for delete are FRINGE or being a FRINGE magnet. In this context, I don't that applies. The article isn't substantiating that UFOs exist, only documenting that they have been covered. While it might attract some people adding less than notable reports, that is a matter of editing, not a reason to delete the article itself. Additionally, while individual sightings might not be notable as singular events, it is conceivable that the aggregate IS notable. As such, the arguments to keep are much stronger in this particular case. Dennis Brown |  2¢ |  WER 23:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC) reply

UFO sightings in China

UFO sightings in China (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Not a notable fringe topic as no independent sources have written on this as a separate an worthy point of inquiry. Individual sightings in China can be covered on articles dedicated to such happenings when they cross various notability thresholds. jps ( talk) 01:59, 30 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions OccultZone ( Talk) 05:58, 30 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science Fiction-related deletion discussions.  Philg88 ^{♦ talk} 06:03, 30 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:20, 30 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:20, 30 May 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete per reasons cited by proposer. - - MrBill3 ( talk) 06:25, 31 May 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep some of the content, delete the parts that make it a list. There was consensus that Meng Zhaoguo incident was notable, but that article was merged and redirected to this list to improve the list. If it's deleted this section needs splitting from it - actually removing anything without sources would leave only two short sentences about a 2010 incident that can be merged to the main list and this section, so I suggest doing that and moving this to Meng Zhaoguo incident without a redirect. If coverage of a sufficient number of notable incidents can be found, this may become a valid list; it isn't much of one now. Peter James ( talk) 21:40, 31 May 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete as a vague non-notable WP:FRINGE-magnet. Although I would not oppose demerging Meng Zhaoguo or starting a fresh article there. bobrayner ( talk) 00:25, 2 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep, there are plenty of reliable sources which suggesting UFO sightings in China have been a significant event. We can find a large number of sources in Chinese, which the nominator has not verified. Here are some more RS ABC News, Yahoo. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 13:16, 2 June 2014 (UTC) reply

The proposed sources you are offering are in violation of WP:NFRINGE considerations. News of the weird coverage is not enough to justify keeping an article in Wikipedia. jps ( talk) 17:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC) reply

This is about various unexplained events and how society has taken notice of them (for example, by categorising them as "UFO sightings"), rather than a theory whether fringe or not. Those are reliable secondary sources for the proposed purpose. Peter James ( talk) 18:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC) reply

You misunderstand what a "fringe theory" is according to Wikipedia definitions. We have articles on how society views UFO sightings in the aggregate and, when applicable, for individual situations. It may be possible to write a Wikipedia article on the UFO phenomenon in the cultural context of China, but this article is not poised to do that and no sources have been identified which show that this is a possible article at this time. Instead, this article is an attempted collection of news-of-the-weird reports. That's simply not what Wikipedia is for. jps ( talk) 19:07, 3 June 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, postdlf ( talk) 18:11, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep as part of a bigger scheme of by country articles about this topic (many listed in the template, for example). Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:34, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply

  Don't believe I've ever read such an argument for keeping an article before. Would you care to elaborate? By the logic of such an argument, I think you would have us create articles on UFO sightings in every single country in the world. So will you be contesting, for example, the conclusion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFO sightings in Iraq? jps ( talk) 00:40, 11 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep I absolutely must intercede in a process that merges one article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meng Zhaoguo incident into another article that gets deleted, on the basis of procedural irregularity alone. To "de-merge" it also proves irregularity, showing the merge target was too weak for it to have been merged into in the first place. Voters have made a mess of this already, let's just leave it alone and get on with improving the article. Anarchangel ( talk) 19:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC) reply
  • The other article discussion is irrelevant to the task at hand. If you want to spin-out some stub for what you think is a plausibly notable topic, by all means go right ahead. But to argue that "voters have made a mess of this already" as the argument for deletion seems like a strong case of WP:AADD. jps ( talk) 16:03, 12 June 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 per WP:SNOW. Andrew ( talk) 11:00, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Fred Housego

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

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

WP:GNG-failing advert. Laun chba ller 16:39, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Even a cursory search establishes notability. TheLongTone ( talk) 17:14, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• {Edit conflict} Comment I have no great enthusiasm for media personalities, but did the nominator do WP:BEFORE checks - for example browsing down the preview summaries of a Google Books search? AllyD ( talk) 17:16, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep - meets WP:BIO. I have added some sources and there are plenty more out there that can be included. Housego was an iconic figure at the time and had a significant media profile for some years subsequently. The Whispering Wind ( talk) 22:35, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Easily passes the notability threshold. He was (is?) a well known figure in the UK and the references back that up.  Philg88 ^{♦ talk} 04:09, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:58, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:58, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:58, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:58, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Obviously notable. -- Michig ( talk) 07:03, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:33, 16 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Janis Pirvics

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

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

Notability? Edgars2007 ^{( talk/ contribs)} 15:23, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:53, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:53, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:53, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Subject doesn't meet the GNG. I didn't find anything on three SERP pages. I may switch if new information becomes available.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 23:06, 11 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete If the claim is true about him being the first Latvian tap dancer, he should be notable. However, all I'm finding is mirrored sites or blog sites, which are not reliable sources. -- MrLinkinPark333 ( talk) 21:39, 15 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 14:51, 17 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Miguel Massana

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

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was that the article Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. This remains valid. The article was recreated by the author of the last version less than 24 hours after deletion. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 14:40, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 14:41, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete and SALT - non-notable, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 14:54, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:42, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:42, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:42, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:43, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Comment - I see no need to SALT something that has only ever been deleted by Prod. Note, that most references to this player in Wikipedia are to Miki Massana and not Miguel Massana. Nfitz ( talk) 21:15, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete - player who has not played in a fully professional league nor senior international football so fails WP:NFOOTY still stands. No indication of any other achievements garner significant reliable coverage to pass WP:GNG either. Fenix down ( talk) 15:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:45, 15 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Terminal Tower (graphic novel)

Terminal Tower (graphic novel) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Poorly sourced article about a newly published graphic novel. No evidence of notability. Fails WP:NBOOK. - Mr X 12:07, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:39, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:39, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete. I've blocked the original editor as a promotional username (full disclosure, although I have no problem with unblocking him if he chooses a new username) and I can't really find anything to show that the book currently passes notability guidelines. It was part of a small exhibition, but it's not an exhibition that would be considered to be enough to pass our notability guidelines. It's enough that I would say that it could be userfied and sent through AfC in the future, but it's not enough for notability in the here and now. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:22, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete. No indication of notability. TJRC ( talk) 19:00, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Comment: For what it's worth, even the creating editor agrees with deletion: " Previously, another user, MrX, mentioned issues concerning notability guidelines that make this article inappropriate for wikipedia and therefore it should be deleted. According to those guidelines editing it shouldn't be enough and I would support its deletion too. Thank you for the warning and guidance." [5]. TJRC ( talk) 19:00, 8 June 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. It's snowing here. Jenks24 ( talk) 14:05, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply

South African cricket team in England in 2014

South African cricket team in England in 2014 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

• Speedy delete. There is no South African tour of England this year. The SA team is going to Sri Lanka and that article exists, so this is duplication with an incorrect title that can't be correctly redirected. The article has been created in good faith but with a major error in the title. Should be a speedy deletion really. Jack | ^{talk page} 11:59, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Speedy delete as above. TheLongTone ( talk) 12:21, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Speedy delete as a hoax. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:34, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Delete as per above - Hoax. →Davey2010→ →Talk to me!→ 18:28, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Speedy delete. Obviously wrong. Johnlp ( talk) 21:17, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Speedy delete per Jack. SW3 5DL ( talk) 23:14, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:46, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:46, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:46, 7 June 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. slakr^{\  talk /} 03:09, 18 June 2014 (UTC) reply

List of surviving veterans of World War II

List of surviving veterans of World War II (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

This page is not encyclopaedic. Notability is not temporary. An encyclopaedia page that is notable now should, in principle, still be notable in a hundred years. In a hundred years this page will be empty. It is also unmaintainable, there is no easy way to verify that the entries are still alive. It would be better as a category. With a category there is at least a fighting chance that an editor entering a date of death on the person's bio will also update the category. The bio editors may not even know that this list exists.

It is also a magnet for unsourced non-notable entries. I find it morally repulsive to delete non-notables from this list. A better solution is to delete the whole list. Spinning Spark 11:36, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply

The handling of WWI through Template:Lists of WWI veteran deaths is a much better scheme. Spinning Spark 11:41, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Disagree. Wikipedia contains many articles about current events ( list of current ships in the United States Navy for instance). You may find deleting non-notables 'morally repulsive', but that's your opinion. I vote it stays. Czolgolz ( talk) 12:31, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Yes, but in a hundred years there will probably still be a US and it will probably still have a navy. And if Wikipedia is still there, it will probably still have a page on it. Spinning Spark 20:04, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete It is also horribly inaccurate, I personally know a dozen living WWII veterans not on this list. It could never be accurate or be properly maintained. Peacemaker67 ( send... over) 14:17, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Note that this list is for notable living veterans, not every veteran. — AMK152 ^{( t • c)} 15:21, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Comment - I have no issue with the fact that these people will eventually die and this page will be blank. This is a living encyclopedia and if this page becomes irrelevant in the future we can delete it then. However, with as long as the list is, it seems like it may be difficult to keep the list accurate. Are people really trolling obit pages to see if any of these folks are still living? Also, does anyone think we should perhaps break it up some? By country or maybe branch of service or some other criteria? It reeeeally long. But the fact that these people will, in the future, not fit the criteria to be in this list does not bother me. With the exception of feeling like some tweaks may benefit the page, this is a keep vote. Bali88 ( talk) 15:45, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete. There are many thousands of surviving veterans of World War II. If it's only notable veterans then it's mistitled and POV. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 16:44, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Are you saying that it's POV because it decides who is is notable and who isn't? Bali88 ( talk) 17:16, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 16:44, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 16:45, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply

It used to be entitled List of notable surviving veterans of World War II. — AMK152 ^{( t • c)} 01:38, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete. I agree with Necrothesp; the article is with a couple of exceptions a list of survivores of WW2 who have wikipedia articles. As such it is POV, because the implication is that (given article title) these are the only people worth listing. ( a full list, evem today, would be very long & almost impossible to source properly). Article function would be much better served by a category. TheLongTone ( talk) 17:46, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Unless the author of the article can give some reasons why this article serves some purpose that a category does not, I don't have any issues with making this a category as opposed to a page. Bali88 ( talk) 19:10, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply

A category that denotes living veterans does not exist. Also, this article is based off of List of surviving veterans of World War I, a list that is no longer in existence, used to be a "good article," although temporary. — AMK152 ^{( t • c)} 01:38, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Efforts were made to include all living veterans that have a Wikipedia article (and their Wikipedia article exists due to their notability). — AMK152 ^{( t • c)} 01:39, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply

I think Bali88 realises that the category does not exist. The suggestion is to create the category. Spinning Spark 01:50, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Creating the category by just adding the category to such individuals can also be done, but such category only lists the person's article name and not their specific service, notability, and categories are more likely to be unsourced. — AMK152 ^{( t • c)} 01:53, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply

*My feeling is that the articles themselves are sourced (or hopefully they are) and a category can be created with sub categories (can't it?) like "Living British WW2 veterans" or "Living WW2 veterans in the Army". I'm not opposed to the page as a source of information. It is notable, but I feel like a category may be more useful in terms of manageability. The list of surviving WW1 veterans article was manageable because enough time had passed that the list of people wasn't terribly long. I can't see this list being actively maintained due to the sheer length. I suspect at least a few of the current entries are already deceased. Bali88 ( talk) 07:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:36, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep for a number of reasons:

• 1. List of surviving veterans of World War I existed (was temporary of course), and such list was even a good article. That is what this article is based on.
• 2. It is a list of notable veterans. If they are not notable enough for Wikipedia, they shouldn't be on the list, thus it is not intended to be as long as one may think.
• 3. Current categories do not cover this list. There are categories that list all veterans and there is the category that lists all living people. But not both. Categories also do not list the veteran's military service.
• 4. This list used to be less sourced than before. Much of the information and references were retrieved from each person's articles. Such a list can help editors focus on each person's WWII service and make sure they are sourced on both the article and the list.
• 5. Note that while this article may be incomplete and not everything may be sourced yet, that is why Wikipedia is what it is. To have these articles improve over time. There are currently 89 sources. This is still a work-in-progress.
• — AMK152 ^{( t • c)} 01:53, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply
  • " List of surviving veterans of World War I existed (was temporary of course), and such list was even a good article. That is what this article is based on." Are you serious? There were a handful of living WWI veterans. There are at this time many thousands of living WWII veterans. At some unspecified point in the future this may be a valid article, but that will be some years yet. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 08:32, 9 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep, but re-work First the nomination rationale of it being "unmaintainable" and a "magnet for unsourced non-notable entries" are not valid rationales for deletion. The other arguement about having it as a category fails, per WP:CLN. Second, this is a list of notable individuals, which can be sourced as needed. AfD is not for cleanup. The real issue here is that in a few years, this list will be empty. A better solution is to mirror the WWI veterans lists and start to create and maintain lists such as List of veterans of World War II who died in 2014, etc. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:33, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply
  • A few years? Given the WWI survival rate, that will actually be closer to about 25 years! Many thousands of WWII veterans will die every year. Do we really need to list them all? You just can't yet compare WWII veterans (in their 80s and 90s) to WWII veterans (who were centenarians). -- Necrothesp ( talk) 08:32, 9 June 2014 (UTC) reply

"Do we really need to list them all?" - Do we need any article? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:59, 9 June 2014 (UTC) reply

A rather silly comment. Listing all the thousands of surviving WWII veterans, even if possible, is effectively an indiscriminate collection of information. It's no more valuable than List of members of the British Army or List of residents of Los Angeles. We list people who are notable, not people who exist. When there are only a few veterans left then the handful of survivors will be notable, as with the WWI veterans, but not until then. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 10:56, 9 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Well it was a rather silly question in the first place. These lists are of notable people and pass WP:SAL. Your arguement seems to be based around article size, which isn't a valid reason for deletion. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:03, 9 June 2014 (UTC) reply

I don't believe I mentioned article size. I'm referring to article point. This article is basically a list of people with articles on Wikipedia who served in World War II, although its title suggests it is a list of all surviving veterans of World War II, whether they have articles or not. I see no point in that at all. Lists can be very useful (I'm certainly not one of those who believes that categories should supplant lists). But this one isn't. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:29, 9 June 2014 (UTC) reply

You implied it with "There are many thousands of surviving veterans of World War II." Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC) reply

No, I didn't. I merely meant that since there are still many thousands of surviving veterans the fact they are veterans is not a claim to notability. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 09:30, 10 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Yes, you did. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep First of all, nominator has WP:NTEMP exactly backwards. "Notability is not temporary" means that if you are notable in a specific timeframe, then you are always notable for WP purposes; not that you have to be notable in every possible time frame. Second, in a hundred years (assuming that WP will still exist, which is doubtful) the page will not be empty: it will be renamed and moved to "List of notable WWII veterans", perhaps the focus changed. Anyway, this is irrelevant when deciding what to do now. Third, to include only notable persons is not only absolutely not POV (what POV is pushed by "being notable for WP"?)but it is exactly the right thing to do to avoid WP:IINFO and to have a reasonable list -if anything, it can be moved to List of notable surviving veterans of World War II. As for I find it morally repulsive to delete non-notables from this list., well, I find instead more morally repulsive to delete notable, sourced and encyclopedic lists from WP. Now what? If you don't want to delete non-notables from the list, don't do it, and someone else will do.-- cyclopia ^speak! 17:29, 10 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Cyclopedia. This is obviously passes WP:LIST that I don't understand why deletion is required. Bearian ( talk) 17:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep and speedy close per Cyclopia - the nomination, while in good-faith, is entirely wrong both on the grounds of NTEMP and on the grounds of there being "a need to remove non-notables"; it is explicitly stated that not only do all the contents of a list not have to be individually notable, but that a list of entirely non-notable-individually things is entirely acceptable; this is "List of surviving veterans of World War II", not "List of surviving notable veterans of World War II". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:52, 12 June 2014 (UTC) reply

  @ The Bushranger: Sorry, you are wrong on that. I appreciate that notability is not the only selection criteria ever used for lists, but the stated selection criteria for this list is "notable surviving veterans of World War II". A list of all surviving veterans would certainly be unmanagably long and probably could never be successfully completed. There are over a million surviving veterans in the US alone. Such a list would certainly break the suggested 32K limit for comprehensive lists at WP:CSC. Spinning Spark 00:35, 13 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Seriously, this is an article? CNN says there are an estimated 1.7 million U.S. survivors of WWII. And that's only the U.S. For all the reasons already mentioned (article's entries will surely change (i.e., die) on a daily basis; there is no way to keep it accurate and up to date; it's a magnet for spurious entries; it's mistitled; it's too long; it serves no purpose that can't be handled by a category) this article is untenable. In addition, it conflates breathing with notability. It is, when push comes to shove, simply a list of people who are alive. While these individuals may have done something notable to earn them a WP article, being alive is what gets them included in this list. That's not notability. 32.218.33.91 ( talk) 01:30, 13 June 2014 (UTC) reply

This article is for notable veterans. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:26, 13 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete - The last few survivors of WWI were widely covered in the media, prior to the death of the last a few years ago. When we are down to a few dozen survivors, a list may be appropriate, but wartime military service was far too common to be particularly notable. "notable veterans" means nothing: it merely requires that the person should have a WP article. NN veterans will of course not have articles at all. This is thus merely a ban on redlinks in the article. At one stage a major function of a list in WP was to idnetify missing articles, and encourage them to be written; this is unlikely to apply here. There is however another objection to the article. The article will need regular maintenance. If it is for survivors, then those who die will need to be removed. At present it is presumably a list of those suviving on 14 June 2014. My father served in the war, but died last January. If he had been notable and this was last November, he would have been in it, but someone whould have had to remove him when he died. I am dubious of Anon's 1.7M. This is about people who served in the armed forces, merely not being alive then. WE might allow categories for WWII veterans, split by country and then by army, navy, etc. However even then it would make some enormous categories. I would not encourage a split by regiment, because people were liable to move from one formation to another. Peterkingiron ( talk) 08:23, 14 June 2014 (UTC) reply

The fact that people are saying it needs regular maintenance and are using that excuse for deletion fails WP:NEGLECT. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:45, 14 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep - I can't be the only one to have personal and moral feelings towards this debate. Regardless of the technical aspects of Wiki pages, keep in mind we're talking about deleting an article (current, unmaintainable, whathaveyou) that is entirely about WWII veterans. Even if this discussion is continued (I think it should be closed), be mindful of the topic at hand. We're here (Wiki) for the sake of preserving knowledge, past, present and future. This list is presently a quick-link to almost all WWII veterans that have a wiki article.

These are living Veterans due amazing respect and talking about the article as if it's a reference to some inconsequential inanimate objects I find exceedingly offensive. 172.242.254.39 ( talk) 06:51, 16 June 2014 (UTC)Mashrien reply

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:45, 15 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Beavers and joseph condition

Beavers and joseph condition (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

I cannot understand the topic (a bit technical). Neither inline references are given nor the given references are online. I have AGF but I need some help to decide if the subject is notable. Jim Carter ^{( talk)} 10:45, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete Per nom, also fails WP:GNG. It looks like it is an article about this (PDF warning): http://www.aem.umn.edu/people/faculty/joseph/archive/docs0/67_1.pdf It is a a paper published by two academics at the University of Minnesota in 1967 concerning "boundary conditions at a naturally permeable wall." Paisarepa ( talk) 11:37, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. SW3 5DL ( talk) 23:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:35, 8 June 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 deleted by Bishonen per CSD A7. ( non-admin closure) BethNaught ( talk) 15:15, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

Rahil Gupta

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

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

Reason - No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events) WP:A7 was removed without explanation Mosfetfaser ( talk) 09:45, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete, fails WP:BIO. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 09:52, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• keep Rahil Gupta The article had everything in the start , it could be a motivation to millitant hit citizens of Jammu kashmir.With consistentb edits it has been reduce. The first work by AnomieBOT was the bestand then so many unwanted changes and may be why two-three users want to get it deleted under category of notability , i am not sure. If he cant fall under this category , then I am sorry.

Arjun7007 ( talk) 10:24, 7 June 2014 (UTC) Arjun7007 ( talk) 10:23, 7 June 2014 (UTC reply

*keep why this is done I am not sure. Everything is there from references to sources<>he is an important figure in J&K , keeping the work he has done there and provided lot of job opportunities to people of J&K. His work makes him entitled to be present on wikipedia

Tilkat ( talk) 10:13, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply

keep the topic is perfect Nomoskedasticity

Shaney 43 ( talk) 10:58, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete. All sources are either primary or seem to be reiterations of "Man opens coffee shop in Kenya". In that light, fails WP:GNG in my eyes. Dolescum ( talk) 11:02, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Sources are primary and secondary as well, where external links put were deleted . :" It is an achievement for 28 year old from state without any facilities to go international and also He is the editor in chief on one of the most liked newspaper and page Cross town News " These facts are enough to keep the topic.

Arjun7007 ( talk) 11:28, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Firstly, screaming keep repeatedly isn't going to help you. You get one !vote to make your case based on policy. Secondly, as NeilN has already stated on your talk page, the source you've supplied are all adverts, apart from this one which does not even mention the subject of your article at all!. Dolescum ( talk) 11:40, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Dolescum What screaming. These are not adverts but press releases . and National level newspapers do not tell lie. If that is the case many articles on wikipedia will also be put under the hammer of deletion then. And as far as deletion is concerned people will vote for me as I am right in this case.

Arjun7007 ( talk) 11:46, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Arjun7007 ( talk) 11:46, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Yeah, to use your own words, they're press releases. Please click here and read the fourth bullet point entitled "Independent of the subject". Dolescum ( talk) 11:50, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Dolescum  : : I did not gave wordings to these big newspapers. They wrote what they felt like. I am not Editor of all these newspaper and big Blogs like Coffee industry and India hospitality review. He rahil gupta got coverage from all of them . check the external links that i have put in which you guys kept on editing.

Arjun7007 ( talk) 11:55, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply

keep the topic is perfect . It has everything which can come in notability Nomoskedasticity

Shaney 43 ( talk) 10:59, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Comment. This AfD is a complete mess. Arjun7007 ( talk · contribs) and Shaney 43 ( talk · contribs), please stop voting repeatedly and messing up the formatting. You get to vote once. I have slightly edited the AfD header itself to remove formatting errors, and I have moved a vote from the header into the body. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 12:19, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Press releases do not confer notability. See WP:42 for details on what's required. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 12:19, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply

NinjaRobotPirate : This is simply a newspaper coverage which can be termed Press release or not , i do not know.YOU guys are using press release , So i used it . these are proper newspaper coverage . And for your knowledge please check WP:42 , NEWSPAPER ARE CONSIDERED AS RELIABLE SOURCES . SO why a mess is being created for deleting the article.So everybody should vote to keep the artcile

Arjun7007 ( talk) 12:27, 7 June 2014 (UTC)— Arjun7007 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

• Delete, entirely unremarkable businessman. One award from his old college is not enough to establish notability. TheLongTone ( talk) 12:37, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete Incidental coverage from independent sources is not quite enough to establish notability. -- NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:49, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• keep Newspaper are the reliable sources . And also in newspaper stories it is clearly evident that he has got awards from IBSAA and others . Also check his facebook pages of Coffeee9 and Cross town news , he seems a local hero.

Shaili 890 ( talk) 14:04, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• keep Independent sources as well as proper documents . Jammu & kashmir is India , I have been there and very few people make a name . He seems to be doing very good .

Monicaaus ( talk) 14:10, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• keep. He is a businessman and an editor in chief oa newspaper , i just saw on links. keep him here for wikipedia as we need more new stuff and growing persons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mytray ( talk • contribs) 14:16, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• CommentLast three contibutions are by freshly created accounts: indeed to date this is Mytray's only edit. . TheLongTone ( talk) 15:14, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• keep The author has written well and has taken reliable sources of Newspaper.

Jammuindia ( talk) 15:52, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• keep My contribution is on the fact that I think Article Rahil gupta is ok with notability parameters and should be kept.

Mooretrop ( talk) 15:58, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Another two freshly created accounts. TheLongTone ( talk) 16:19, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Loving the SPA's here!, Anyway Delete as non notable person!. →Davey2010→ →Talk to me!→ 18:35, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete: the sources are either press releases, incidental mentions of the person, or articles consisting of quasi-interviews where his words are wrapped in a thin layer of journalism, such that it is basically just his words. Notability is not established. BethNaught ( talk) 18:40, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete - as per previous posts, the sources do not qualify as reliable sources. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:51, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Comment - Sock-puppetry is not an effective way to influence a deletion discussion. Also, there is a discussion of this article at WP:ANEW. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:51, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Comment - There is a related sockpuppetry case open as well. Additionally, seeing the excessive amount of sockpuppets i have semi protected the AFD for the rest of the week. Excirial ^{( Contact me, Contribs)} 20:27, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Fails BIO. Seems notable only to the SPA's. SW3 5DL ( talk) 23:22, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:30, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:30, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:30, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Fails Bio Code.

Wow looking at so many not so helpful Keeps, I agree, this once should be deleted and so should the "Sock Users" be blocked along with the "IP" to make sure no more of such cock-a-doodle-doo-doo disruption is happening.

As for the person, I too live in India, but in my own opinion (it is my personal opinion), here, people can become (read do becomes for god does not even know why reason) one time local hero by doing any thing, in order of doing a few things is one point to note which does not make a persons article worth; local news can publish what they think would help in their benefit do anything, as the current market structure is very very competitive with everyone trying to hoard a place; so hopefully in order to sell, everything is posted for many days till the news becomes pricking. Danke Schôn. Vishal Bakhai - Works 06:05, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• I've speedied the article per WP:A7, no indication of importance. Indeed, per the original speedy template that was removed by one of the many many indefblocked socks haunting the article and this discussion. The alternative would be to semi the article and keep it until the inevitable "delete" close here, but what for? Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Bishonen | talk 15:00, 8 June 2014 (UTC). reply

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:31, 19 June 2014 (UTC) reply

IFFHS best clubs of the 20th century

IFFHS best clubs of the 20th century (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidence of independent notability from International Federation of Football History & Statistics, as well as potential copyright issues. Article should be deleted, or at most merged back into the parent article. A similar article, IFFHS continental Clubs of the 20th Century, has previously been deleted by PROD. Giant Snowman 08:33, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:34, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep: The International Federation of Football History & Statistics (IFFHS) is a credible international football organisation, it's maked and published this famous vote on 2009 ( The book on Barnes & Noble). -- Fayçal.09 ( talk) 14:07, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• But that article is not up for deletion - this is. Where is the "significant coverage" of this particular award in reliable, third-party sources, as required by WP:GNG? Why does it deserve a separate article from the main IFFHS page? Giant Snowman 14:12, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Mr GiantSnowman, for me, no probleme if we merge with IFFHS page but I think it's important to separate the articles same as IFFHS World's Best Club Coach or IFFHS World's Best Goalkeeper. -- Fayçal.09 ( talk) 19:33, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - and those article probably also need deleting/merging. Giant Snowman 19:36, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:28, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:28, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete - per WP:NOTSTATS. Perhaps worthy of discussion on the organisation's page. Fenix down ( talk) 15:36, 10 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom, and Fenix. WP:NOTSTATS. SW3 5DL ( talk) 23:45, 15 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Fayçal.09's indication that the IFFHS is an organisation capable of producing notable materials. Article is succinct although perhaps the continents might be alphabetised or an explanation of the order of the lists might be given. The links system on the IFFHS' page looks servicable. Copyright seems to be main negative argument if valid Gregkaye ( talk) 10:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• @ Gregkaye: - no-one is doubting that IFFHS as an organisation is notable; so please can you show why this particular sub-article justifies a separate article? Giant Snowman 12:11, 17 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete per WP:NOTSTATS. Dennis Brown |  2¢ |  WER 00:07, 19 June 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 Paul_Cameron#Family_Research_Institute. Without prejudice to merging content as editorially appropriate. I've taken the liberty of setting the redirect to section where the survey is currently mentioned, but retarget as needed based on normal editorial practice. j⚛e decker ^talk 14:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC) reply

1983 ISIS Survey

1983 ISIS Survey (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

There's no evidence that this survey itself was notable. The section is heavily focused on criticizing the survey but neither side is really sourced. Ricky81682 ( talk) 07:51, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:04, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:04, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:04, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Lacks reliable sources. Essentially an essay. Lacks neutral viewpoint. Google search did not reveal much when I used the terms "ISIS survey" and 1983.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 16:13, 9 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Consider merging. Paul Cameron's misconduct is well-known and discussed, but usually with reference to his body of work rather than to a specific study per se. The cited Herek source seems valid. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 18:11, 9 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Most of that is already discussed at Paul_Cameron#From_individuals. I think they're discussing the same study. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 06:46, 10 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom and User:Tomwsulcer. SW3 5DL ( talk) 17:02, 12 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:44, 15 June 2014 (UTC) reply

LX(R)

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

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

Fails WP:CRYSTAL with minimum coverage. Tupsumato ( talk) 06:46, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 June 7. — cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 06:58, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete - obvious case of CRYSTAL here. Parsecboy ( talk) 10:19, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete Subject fails GNG, CRYSTAL and arguably NOTNEWS. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 11:42, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:02, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:02, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:02, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:43, 15 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Cornwall Centre (Regina, Saskatchewan)

Cornwall Centre (Regina, Saskatchewan) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable mall. Was PRODed, but PROD was removed. Epeefleche ( talk) 04:08, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete per Wikipedia is not a directory. Non-notable mall with only passing mentions on Google and some local references. Single "reference" in the article is a disallowed Wikipedia internal link.  Philg88 ^{♦ talk} 05:08, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:46, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:46, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Fails WP:GNG. No usable references in the article, and a search failed to find any reliable sources. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:50, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete. per WP:NOTDIR and fails WP:GNG. SW3 5DL ( talk) 23:26, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete as non notable centre fails GNG. →Davey2010→ →Talk to me!→ 05:19, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Comment  The first hit on the Google books link above is a 14-page book written in 1981 entirely about this topic.  Unscintillating ( talk) 02:06, 15 June 2014 (UTC) reply

What does this book say about the mall which would help to establish notability? -- RoySmith (talk) 02:33, 15 June 2014 (UTC) reply

What Roy said. Also -- is it a primary source, by Saskatchewan Urban Affairs about Saskatchewan urban affairs? Epeefleche ( talk) 03:48, 15 June 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 g11, advertising. NawlinWiki ( talk) 04:38, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply

PCC Mobile Broadband

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

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

Promotional article about a non-notable company Novato 123chess456 ( talk) 03:46, 7 June 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. postdlf ( talk) 04:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC) reply

List of songs heard on Army Wives

List of songs heard on Army Wives (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Not a notable concept. JDDJS ( talk) 03:38, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete WP:DIRECTORY, unsourced, WP:ADVERT can also be used for this list; we don't usually have this for television shows. Nate • ( chatter) 03:52, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete Non-notable topic contrary to Wikipedia is not a directory.  Philg88 ^{♦ talk} 07:29, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete per WP:DIRECTORY and fails WP:GNG. SW3 5DL ( talk) 23:28, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  Philg88 ^{♦ talk} 07:26, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  Philg88 ^{♦ talk} 07:29, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:00, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:01, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Not an encyclopedic topic; fan cruft. Carrite ( talk) 05:13, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete as fancrap - Fails NOTDIR. →Davey2010→ →Talk to me!→ 05:20, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Crufty and non-notable spinout that really has no mergeable content. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 13:23, 8 June 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. A number of changes have been made to the article, the only view explicitly expressed was a change from delete to keep, rendering previous views weak. Not quite sure what happened to this AfD within the AfD scripts, but *something* caused this to disappear for three weeks. At this point, any new discussion is best started afresh. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:04, 30 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Transgender Education Advocates (TEA) of Utah

Transgender Education Advocates (TEA) of Utah (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

No independent, reliable sources about this organization. References in the article are either blogs, a student newspaper or to itself. The Salt Lake Tribune references do not talk about the organization, but merely mention it. All refs in article are also local. Article is also highly promotional and has copyright violations as it has copied from TEA's homepage. Prod was removed for, "TEA has been verified as a legitimate non-profit via Salt Lake Tribune and QSalt Lake, two independent news sources. This wiki page is similar to Equality Utah and Utah Pride wiki entries". Bgwhite ( talk) 05:21, 28 May 2014 (UTC) reply

• Deleteupdated Huge content, but primary sources have huge place on this article. It can be merged or redirected if there is any proposal or similar idea. OccultZone ( Talk) 05:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions OccultZone ( Talk) 05:27, 28 May 2014 (UTC) reply

• CRIMSONDOVE: Author willing to downsize article, but references are valid. Multiple independent news sources have been cited. Links to linked in have been removed. TEA's website is only referenced as to their missions statement and purpose and one internal document that applies to their history. This page is similar to Equality Utah and Utah Pride Center wiki pages and should be retained.

Delete, doesn't meet notability guidelines for WP:ORG]. Zeus ^{u| c} 06:07, 28 May 2014 (UTC) reply

• CRIMSONDOVE: AUTHOR REMOVED SOME OF THE BULK OF THE WIKI ENTRY, STREAMLINED AND ADDED APPROPRIATE LINKS TO MULTIPLE CREDIBLE OUTSIDE SOURCES. Please re-review — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crimsondove ( talk • contribs) 06:14, 28 May 2014 (UTC) reply
• CRIMSONDOVE: Author addressed concerns of notability guidelines by referencing a book in publication and several different news sources, including an on-camera interview regarding their work. Please re-review. This wiki has similar/more notability references than a similar accepted page, Utah Pride Center. Thanks so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crimsondove ( talk • contribs) 07:00, 28 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 11:38, 28 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 11:38, 28 May 2014 (UTC) reply

• THANK YOU to everyone for their time in streamlining this article. This was my first, so I greatly appreciate your help. It looks really good! Crimsondove ( talk) 20:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Crimsondove ( talk • contribs) 20:22, 28 May 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, Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 02:33, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Relist Comment, note that the article has been reduced in size considerably since User:OccultZone's comments above, which may address some of those concerns. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 02:35, 7 June 2014 (UTC). reply

@ Lankiveil: Thanks for pinging me, I have re-checked the article, I think we can agree with a Keep now. OccultZone ( Talk) 02:47, 7 June 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. Nomination withdrawn. WP:Non-admin closure §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { T/ C} 05:07, 11 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Slum (film)

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

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

Non-notable film, does not meet WP:NF BOVINEBOY 2008 02:08, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Commment: If anyone is curious, the other AfD is for a completely different film by the same name. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:32, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:55, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:55, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And more though WP:INDAFD

• Keep brand new article on released film that has enough coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:NF. Sure, it was initially poorly sourced when first nominated, but when they ARE available that is not a deletion criteria, nor are the issues of an early different topic by this same name to be visited upon this new film article. We have solutions that do not mandate a deletion. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:25, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Withdraw. This film does meet notability criteria. BOVINEBOY 2008 10:55, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:42, 15 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Jamie Murphy (soldier)

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

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

Delete: this was a tragic death of a brave soldier but fails notability, SOLDIER and GNG, in my opinion, unless I am missing something. Quis separabit? 01:08, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:26, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete although I honor his service and mourn his death. The nominator is correct, and WP:NOTMEMORIAL is also applicable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:45, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Clarityfiend ( talk) 09:33, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 15:34, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom AND Cullen. →Davey2010→ →Talk to me!→ 18:36, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom and Cullen. SW3 5DL ( talk) 23:33, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:51, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:51, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. —   dain omite   14:06, 11 June 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 Matt Maher. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:42, 15 June 2014 (UTC) reply