Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 August 26: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 16:04, 26 August 2013

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 25 August	27 August >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was no consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar · · 06:01, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chen Shiqiang

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

No assertation of notability. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (warn) @ 01:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think he would probably meet Wikipedia:Notability_(politicians) criterion 9 (sub-national legislators) by his position on the Xinyang standing committee. The standing committee is a fairly small body that holds the real power, and Xinyang has a population of 6.1 million in its administrative area. I'm not sure how many members are on that standing committee, but it's usually only a dozen or so. ~~All the companies he's chairman of seem to be owned by the city, so he's a politician rather than a businessman~~ (EDIT: no they're not, I was wrong about that), but some of them are fairly big; Xinyang Auspicious Tea Group apparently has assets of 1.85 billion RMB (~200 million USD). He probably doesn't qualify for notability as a member of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, because even though it's supposed to be an important national level decision-making body, in reality it has no power at all; it also has about 2000 members, and the 'national committee' just means the whole thing, not an important subcommittee. "11th member" isn't a ranking either, it's a mistranslation of "member of the 11th CPPCC" (2008-2012). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.249.54.254 (talk) 16:31, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 17:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 05:22, 5 August 2013 (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 DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:37, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sven Sester

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

Delete - This article is not notable to be added on Wikipedia. AdamSmithUS (talk) 15:55, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep, clearly passes WP:POLITICIAN as the member of a national parliament; he's even described as a "high-ranking" member who was Chair of the Finance Committee.[1] Please better familiarize yourself with relevant notability guidelines before nominating something for deletion on that basis; also read WP:BEFORE. postdlf (talk) 16:04, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep he certainly passes WP:POLITICIAN per Postdlf's comment above if the article's contents are accurate, but this is currently a completely unsourced biography of a living person. My keep vote is predicated on some sourcing being found to back up any claims in the article (if none have been found by tonight EST I'll see if I can have a look myself for some). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:47, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Read my comment again and check the included link. postdlf (talk) 18:41, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added a reference. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:44, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've also added a reference so it's undoubted that he's a member of a national legislature and finance committee chairman, which meets WP:POLITICIAN. There are numerous more Estonian language ones around, which I'm not linguistically competent enough to judge, such as this one covering the birth of one of his kids. I'd say there would be enough in several of those to meet WP:BIO. Valenciano (talk) 20:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:44, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:44, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Member of a national legislature. Enos733 (talk) 22:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly passes WP:POLITICIAN. Should never have been nominated for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:37, 27 August 2013 (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 procedural close defaulting to keep. No prejudice against a new nomination by a non-sockpuppet. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:19, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

William Dudley Geer

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

Delete - This article is not notable to be added on Wikipedia. AdamSmithUS (talk) 15:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:55, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't know how Geer ranks in notability but that list of papers needs to be cut at least in half. It looks like it was cut and pasted from a CV. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:04, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Withdrew due to sock nom. Here is William Dudley Geer obituary which verifies most of the article's highlights. The article was created by another Geer User:SamuelTGeer in 2004, who also uploaded old pictures of the Geer family, presently unused. I don't believe any of his many titles or positions pass WP:ACADEMIC, Dean not high enough. Nothing for WP:GNG in Google Books. Nothing in Google Scholar. I checked commercial databases for older offline material (JSTOR, Gale, ProQuest etc) and nothing there. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:52, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- We have a long list of publications. I am not familiar with US academic titles, but I thought Dean was a high status. I accept that there may be COI with the creator, but the question is notability, and I would have thought it was adequate. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:57, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ACADEMIC it says Dean is not high enough position to be considered "Lesser administrative posts (Provost, Dean, Department Chair, etc.) are generally not sufficient to qualify". The publications are actually limited for an academic over a lifetime career, nearly non-existent on scholar.google.com in terms of other citations, his pubs seem to be largely forgotten by his peers. Don't get me wrong I don't care about COI morally, just mentioned it because he was added not by a neutral party who knows of him, but a family member, which is a sign to look into notability more closely. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:38, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Close with no prejudice: this is an apparent bad-faith nomination by a blocked sockpuppet account.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 21:45, 4 September 2013 (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 Icon for Hire. Will userfy upon request. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:28, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Icon for Hire (album)

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

clearly WP:TOOSOON. No RSes can or will be found for over a month. Move to user space and restore when the album meets notability guidelines. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 05:38, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy. I agree with nominator. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Only Do not even userfy it right now because then you keep the cover art, which must get deleted, so the only solution to the matter is a simple redirect to the band page.HotHat (talk) 05:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 18:17, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nat Keohane

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Claim that being a Special Assistant to the President is basically a third level staff position. Article cites academic career as enought to establish notability; however, there is no evidence he was a tenured professor or he meets criteria in WP:PROF. reddogsix (talk) 15:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep environmental expert often quoted and interviewed. Plain Google searches: [2][3][4][5][6][7] He has a lot of hits in the Congressional Hearing Transcript Database meaning he participated in various capacities at Congressional Hearings. He was a guest on CNN Tonight with anchor Erica Hill (12/07/2009) pretty lengthy. There's 19 hits on NewsBank in newspapers around the country, of those about 5 already mentioned. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:18, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Query Did you look at the G-scholar hits? Dloh cierekim 16:28, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - What I saw a number of thanks listings of his name, but admittedly I did not look at every listing. reddogsix (talk)

Delete. It's not GS hits that are important, it's cites, and these are tiny. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:55, 6 September 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:50, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:52, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 05:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article has had a lot of updates since it was nominated for deletion. The inclusion of about almost a dozen citations from independent and reliable sources demonstrate notability per WP:GNG. Although the Congressional testimony, in itself, is not independent (Congressional testimony is a primary source), it does demonstrate the subject's importance as having "made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity", per WP:PROF Criteria #7. - tucoxn\^talk 07:41, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
sigh AfD as a route to improvement. Dloh cierekim 14:31, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improvements and "good job" to the improvers. While I would prefer stronger WP:RS, the subject is notable. Dloh cierekim 14:36, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 18:16, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jalan Pengkalan Utama

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

Non-Notable across world. Bobherry talk 14:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to be a state-level route, and state-level routes are considered to be notable for being state-level routes, per Wikipedia's remit as a gazzeteer. Sources will need to be found to pass WP:V, but these need not be online sources. Just because it's a state-level route in Malaysia does not make it "non-notable across world", see WP:BIAS/WP:CSB. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 05:43, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - State level routes are notable, and saying that something is "non-notable around the world" is a case of systemic bias, something Wikipedia strives to avoid. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:25, 2 September 2013 (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. The consensus is that this is redundant to a superior article at Iranian Azerbaijanis. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:05, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian in Republic of Azerbaijan

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

Article is completely redundant to Iranian Azerbaijanis. It was created by a new user, Eight for Eight, and redirected for all the right reasons by White King, Writ Keeper's alter ego. See User talk:Writ Keeper/Archives/9#Iranian in Azerbaijan for a bit of detail. Eight for Eight reverted with the grammatically and rhetorically insufficient edit summary "(is Diapora all of the diapora article". I restored the redirect, to find my actions undone, without any explanation, by Serzhik. Let's settle this. If the other name is better (ahem--note the grammar and the subsequent name change, which made it even worse since the "notables" mostly precede the founding of the republic) a move discussion should be started. This duplication and the attendant improperly explained edit warring is disruptive, and the very poorly written duplicate should be deleted. Drmies (talk) 14:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I see now that Serzhik has left an explanation (of sorts) on Talk:Iranians in Republic of Azerbaijan, which is as grammatically challenged as the comments left elsewhere by Eight for Eight. Drmies (talk) 14:52, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the problem may be that the newer article is written in relatively poor English that makes its subject difficult to understand. Iranian Azerbaijanis, the target of my redirect, is about people of Azerbaijani descent who currently live in Iran. The title of the new article and Serzhik's explanations seem to imply that the new article is about the inverse; that is, people of Iranian descent who currently live in Azerbaijan. But the text of the article is ambiguous at best: "...citizens of Iranian nationality and Iranian citizens abroad are Azerbaijani citizens and permanent residents of mainly ethnic Azerbaijani background..." sounds like it's referring to people of Azerbaijani descent who were citizens of Iran at one point and then left Iran, which sounds much closer to the topic of Iranian Azerbaijanis than the purported subject of Iranian in Republic of Azerbaijan. Indeed, the text of the article has a population figure that is labeled with a link to Iranian Azerbaijanis! So, if my and Drmies's original assumption is true, then this article should be deleted as a duplicate of Iranian Azerbaijanis. If it is incorrect, then the article should at least be moved to Azerbaijani Iranians or something analogous with a proviso that extensive reworking is required, if not deleted anyway (without prejudice towards rewriting/recreation, and with the standard allowances for userfying, etc.) for general incoherence. I'm sorry, but it's difficult, if not impossible, to parse even the topic of the article from its text, much less any useful information. Writ Keeper (WK to move) ⚇♔ 14:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@ User:Drmies: Iranian Azerbaijanis and Azeris in Iran isnot Iranians in Republic of Azerbaijan. i say in this talk page.

Iranians in Republic of Azerbaijan and Iranian Azerbaijanis Is different.

Iranians in Republic of Azerbaijan means persians, Azeris and other Ethnic minorities in Iran, now living in Republic of Azerbaijan example diaspora and are Ethnic groups in Azerbaijan
Iranian Azerbaijanis means Azeris native in Iran and Ethnic groups in Iran.

be short in this article isnot Reason to remove. plz see short article for the turkish and Armenians daispora Turks in Spain, Armenians in Bahrain--Serzhik (talk) 14:56, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as already exists in a much more detailed and much more adequately alternative title, and isn't a likely search term (stats.grok has it at "Iranian_in_Republic_of_Azerbaijan has been viewed 42 times in the last 30 days." of which 32 were on the day of nomination for deletion). Technical 13 (talk) 16:20, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 00:49, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I tried (and am trying) to fix the grammar in the article. This does seem to be the only article about this subject (the redirect, as explained above, is about the opposite... thing). PrairieKid (talk) 05:14, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - duplicates an existing article, and this is definitely not a valid redirect; the title doesn't even make sense (at the very least, it should say "Iranians in Azerbaijan") and Serzhik's argument, which is bordering on incomprehensible, doesn't seem to address the fact it is a duplication. And if it is supposed to be talking about Azerbaijani Iranians, then WP:TNT this mess and write a proper article there. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:29, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We already have a better article--this isn;t even a useful search term for a redirect, 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 17:56, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - duplicates an existing article. Kabirat (talk) 07:49, 17 September 2013 (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 merge to Upper Canada College. Already redirected by nom, 08:55, 3 September 2013 (non-admin closure) -- Trevj (talk) 14:04, 5 September 2013 (UTC) Sourced content merged. -- Trevj (talk) 08:31, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Upper Canada College houses

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

I can't find anywhere near sufficient sourcing to indicate that these organizations are notable, either individually or in aggregate. This page appears to largely consist of personal knowledge, as there are no corresponding references in the article or, that I can find, in existence at all. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:49, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge The houses are detailed in works such as Upper Canada College, 1829-1979. There's an obvious alternative to deletion — merger into the parent article Upper Canada College. Warden (talk) 12:58, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:11, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:11, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - obviously, to Upper Canada College. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:30, 27 August 2013 (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 -- Y not? 20:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Karli Beatz

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC. Only one source is notable, and it's a passing mention of a mixtape. Ish dar ian 11:56, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Autobio - Fails GNG, and WP:MUSIC. -- Alexf^(talk) 18:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:10, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:10, 26 August 2013 (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. Jujutacular (talk) 18:54, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wild Taiga Finland

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

Not notable and unreferenced. Promotional. Previously deleted for copyvio (1x) and spam (1x). Repeatedly recreated without encyclopedic content. GregJackP Boomer! 11:52, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:08, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:09, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:09, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Google News search turns up empty. MER-C 13:02, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is no evidence of importance. Technical 13 (talk) 15:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - worthy but NN. Bearian (talk) 19:59, 5 September 2013 (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. Jujutacular (talk) 18:55, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chitra Thiyagarajan

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

It is the device that is notable. The inventor requires more than a notable device under patent to be notable here. Fails notability. Fiddle Faddle 11:15, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Yes device is under patent process. She is notable with this invention. Before this, she had two more invention. (Gokulchandola (talk) 11:44, 26 August 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:08, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:08, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient sources, also insufficient for "invention". Xxanthippe (talk) 22:37, 26 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. No evidence from subject related journals. asimkumar2222 (talk) 22:37, 26 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - Yes she is notable. (182.68.231.169 (talk) 04:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Delete per WP:NotJustYet. Mandalini (talk) 16:50, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because even if the device she patented is barely notable enough to have an article, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED and until there are some sources about her then I feel Mandalini is right with a WP:NotJustYet assessment. Technical 13 (talk) 15:19, 5 September 2013 (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, the one delete !voter agrees it is now worth keeping. Note: I was involved in the discussion below. Non admin closure. cyclopia ^speak! 09:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC) -[reply]

MOVED ARTICLE TO Plant sources of anti-cancer agents Albiet (talk) 03:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC)Albiet[reply]

Anticancer plants

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

Non-notable topic giving rise to original research. As has been pointed out in Talk, out of three sources listed in support of the definition, only one has the actual words "Anti-cancer plants" - and even that source only uses those words once, in the title. Where plants (more usually their extracts) are researched in the field of cancer they are mentioned in List of plants used in herbalism. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:41, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator – article title, scope and content has changed since proposa was made. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 21:34, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable, being covered in detail in sources such as Plants that Fight Cancer, Anticancer Drugs from Animals, Plants, and Microorganisms and Lead Compounds from Medicinal Plants for the Treatment of Cancer. Warden (talk) 09:01, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- None of those books are on anticancer plants, but on substances derived from plants - a different topic.
  - The first book, for example, is called Plants that Fight Cancer. It lists and reviews the plants, not just particular chemicals. Your claim is therefore false. Warden (talk) 09:43, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not that I could see (admittedly from the limited amount available on Google Books). What "anticancer plant" can you see listed, on which page? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - The book details over 150 plants such as

aconitum napellus — page 160
acronychia baueri — page 74
annona purpurea — page 81

Warden (talk) 10:16, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - Well, I don't have access to those pages so I can't see. But just to be clear, you are stating the book describes these plants directly as "anticancer plants" ? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:41, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        It uses the word anticancer repeatedly in a variety of phrases such as "plant species with anticancer activity". Warden (talk) 10:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Subject passes GNG. That the article is a mess and the content is subject to dispute and debate is neither here nor there. Lack of coverage of the Pacific Yew like THIS is the biggest content failure, at a glance. Carrite (talk) 15:57, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a lot of material on that topic at Paclitaxel#Production Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 22:07, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It seems like the nominator really only has a complaint with the title, which should be dealt with by a discussion to rename if "anticancer plant" is not the most accurate or best-sourced descriptive. It doesn't appear to be in dispute that the underlying subject is notable regardless of what it's called. postdlf (talk) 16:22, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I would not say that the article is about non-notable topic, because it is not clear what that topic actually is. It could be the words "Anticancer plants" - in that case it is obviously not notable. It could be the plants that have been used to cure cancer (that's what the source "Ethnobotanical Survey of Anti-Cancer Plants in Ogun State, Nigeria" talks about). It could be plants that actually do cure cancer. It could be plants with chemical substances that somehow influence cancer cells. It could be about chemical substances themselves. All those things are different and whatever we choose, most of the material will have to go.

For a second point let's see if the current version ([8]) has any material worth saving. The lead section is: "Anti-cancer plants (or plants as source of anti cancer agents) are plants which are believed by some[1] to be cancer healing or contain anticancer agents.[2][3]". Three sources - and yet, not a single of them actually supports the statement! Those sources were added ([9]) by the same user (User:Turboscience), who wrote the first version - and added almost all other sources ([10]). And that was done specifically to show the use of the name ([11])! So, if the author of the article couldn't use the sources correctly in case of such simple matter, how can we trust the rest of the article?

For a third point why the material should not be kept I would like to note that the author of it is a sockpuppet of a banned (or, if you wish, blocked with no hope of unblocking) user Ttturbo (talk · contribs). Now, the problem is that the actual evidence is in Lithuanian Wikipedia. It does show that lt:Naudotojas:Turboscience is a sockpuppet of lt:Naudotojas:Turbo, who is known to be "Ttturbo" here. Unfortunately, the evidence is in Lithuanian (for example, the note of blocking administrator - [12]), thus I am afraid that this part will be harder for me to demonstrate "beyond reasonable doubt" here...

Fourth, there was an effort to clean this article up ([13]). As I note in the talk page ([14]), it was not much of a success... I guess that the one who tried to do so is not very happy with the result either ([15]). The failure of this try can be seen as evidence that, perhaps, getting something that looks reasonable here is impossible. Unless we count throwing everything (even the name) away and starting from scratch - but that is not different from deletion...

So, even if we are going to ignore the third point, we have an article with no material trustworthy, an article that is a mess with no clear topic, an article with a name that is clearly wrong for all reasonable topics. There is nothing left to save. Perhaps in some other cases it is reasonable to argue that "deletion is not cleanup", but in this case it is probably time to ignore that "rule" per WP:IAR... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 18:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:06, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:06, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Valuable stub which can be expanded into even more valuable article with addition of specifics and if not allowed to become an advertisement for alternative medical or self treatment. Should be tagged as stub. Did some perliminary editing which I hope is helpful. Maybe worth a second look. Albiet (talk) 20:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC) Albiet[reply]

Well, you defined this as an article about "plants or their derivatives, useable in treatment of cancers" ... which is not a classification from any source that I can see, and is going to be pretty restrictive (remember sources for this will need to be WP:MEDRS compliant). A looser classification would be "plants or their derivatives which have shown anti-cancer potential in research". But this troubles me: we're not following sources, we're synthesizing a topic (and one that overlaps heavily with List of plants used in herbalism in the second classification). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 20:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't classify this article as anything. Today is the first time that I've even seen the article. Might I suggest though that with my initial edits, the article could be made far more coherent by also moving the page to "Plant sources of anticancer agents". This would also allow for the removal of all of the "not in citation" notes as to sources 1 - 3. This article is clearly salvageable and could be developed into a valuable addition to the Wikipedia. Albiet (talk) 21:17, 26 August 2013 (UTC)Albiet, sorry forgot to sign when saved earlier[reply]

Also, my most extensive edits toward greater cohesion and coherence are included in the articles "History" section. Albiet (talk) 21:24, 26 August 2013 (UTC)Albiet[reply]

I think it might be a good idea to add a diff: [16]. Anyway, if you really want to write a decent new article with a new name, new topic and new sourced content without actual deletion (and are able to pull that off), that's OK with me. But the text you added is not a step in direction of a decent article. Almost all of it is "offtopic" ("For example, the component of the foxglove, which is active at remedying congestive heart failure, is digitalis." - the definition doesn't say anything about "congestive heart failure"). Also, the rest of the text becomes "offtopic" as well: "Plants like medical cannabis are used for palliative treatment rather than targeting the tumor." is the only sentence that talks about actual usability in real treatment... The rest of the text would have to be deleted.

Of course, I should note that such process is almost indistinguishable from deletion, followed by writing of a new unrelated article in a new place...

Oh, and you have to choose: "Plant sources of anticancer agents" is completely different from "whole plants or their derivatives, useable in treatment of cancers". You can have sources of chemical substances that are useless in treatment themselves (having some substances in too small amounts, or having substances that kill tumors together with the patient)... And you have to show that someone actually groups the plants in such way. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 21:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because we have no sourced definition of "anticancer plants", the first sentence of the article (and your re-write) effectively defines that classification. If we re-title the article and gut it that could work (logically equivalent to deleting). Would you want the new article to be about proven anticancer agents or potential anticancer agents; and would the anticancer effect be in petri dishes, in laboratory animals, or in people? Are there suitable sources? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 21:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(add) and the new definition you've given in the lede ("An Anti-cancer plant is a whole plant thats derivative(s) are useable for treatment of cancers") means we should delete the whole body, since so far as I can see none of the substances mentioned are "usable for treatment" -- they're all just lab experiments. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 21:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MOVED ARTICLE TO Plant sources of anti-cancer agents Albiet (talk) 03:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Albiet[reply]

Cool — with the new name and scope I think we have the basis of something worthwhile. Martynas Patasius — if you don't object, I suggest withdrawing my nomination for deletion and we can wrap this up. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think you had to wait for my permission: by now the article ([17]) has a different name, different content, different topic and different authors. It is as if the article has been deleted and a new one created, just using the first one as a source of inspiration. Even from a completely procedural point of view those two articles probably shouldn't share an AFD discussion. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 21:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Proper notable topic, lots of sources. I appreciate the move to the new title. --cyclopia ^speak! 21:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per criterion 1 at WP:SK. The new name for the article has clarified its scope and several references describe the topic. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:03, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment N.B. after largely rewriting the article according to its new name, I withdrew the deletion nomination (see above); just waiting now for a passing admin to close this as a keep ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:11, 5 September 2013 (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. Sandstein 06:07, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Manhattan Review

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

As is, the article fails to meet WP:N. Two of the three references come from the company site, and the third reference is 6 years old, from an article that isn't about the company per se, but just references a company spokesman commenting on the article topic. A search reveals no other references of note. Transmissionelement (talk) 16:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 00:12, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 07:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose we could merge to Joern Meissner. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:49, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are some more recent references, for example, Business Week included this company in a fairly brief overview of GMAT preparation options in 2011. I vote to keep it in.Weblife (talk) 00:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this seems to have grown from 3 sources to 7 and Google search has some hits... Technical 13 (talk) 15:24, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - there are some online sources, but this is quite marginal in notability. Bearian (talk) 20:00, 5 September 2013 (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 -- article withdrawn by uploader. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 00:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Big Damn Heores

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

My original concern was "It may have been founded by a notable person, but this band has not received enough coverage in reliable sources. Not tagging for A7 due to the fact that it was founded by someone notable.", but the article was de-prodded by the author. While he later added three references, only the first source (Supernova) shows much promise (indeed, if consensus determines that Supernova.com is a reliable source I'll be happy to withdraw this AFD), while the other two appear to be (unreliable) podcasts. I'm pretty sure Tyler Boyco is notable, but unfortunately, notability does not extend to the band he founded. An alternative could be to mention the band in Boyco's article and create redirects for "Big Damn Heroes (band)" and "Thrillhouse (band)" to that article, but that will depend on the consensus of this AfD. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:01, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:07, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:07, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Supernova is not a reliable source, about. "online music community which actively promotes its artists". duffbeerforme (talk) 07:44, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fix name and redirect to Tyler_Boyco#Music_career. This is already fairly adequately covered in Boyco's article and considering the lack of reliable sources, I can't see where this merits its own article at this point in time. The only relatively usable source was an article by the student paper of a college that one of them attended. Other than that, there's really nothing at this point in time. That might change later in time, but right now there just isn't enough for a standalone article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see Boyco being notable, let alone any of his bands. Band lacks coverage, awards, charting. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:04, 27 August 2013 (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. --BDD (talk) 22:50, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Professor Fate (album)

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

Album lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Lacks reviews, charting, awards. Nothing coming close to WP:NALBUMS. History has a bunch on bad external links trying to publicise the album, not independent coverage. A search found no good sources to show notability. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:05, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 05:43, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - no independent coverage found; appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NALBUMS. Gong show 07:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 05:37, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jack S. Margolis

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

Non-notable writer and actor, fails AUTHOR, NACTOR and GNG. YousufMiah (talk) 02:15, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article meets criteria for notability. It asserts notability as a counterculture writer of multiple books and is supported by verifiable, independent references. reddogsix (talk) 02:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I actually have to argue against many of the sources as far as notability giving goes. IMDb isn't usable to show notability as anyone can edit it. Merchant sources such as Amazon and CD Universe are really discouraged in general for the obvious reasons (the sites' purpose is to sell you things), and many of the other sources are primary. The NIU source is good, albeit maybe slightly trivial in nature, and the Hartford Courant article is also good. All in all, those are probably the only two sources I'd keep, but we definitely need more as far as showing solid notability goes. I don't think (or at least I hope) that sources will be that hard to find, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:24, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Now that I've cleaned out the blatantly unusable sources, I've managed to add in just enough to where it should be a comfortable enough keep. Now what I didn't add were the amount of sources that listed some of his books as various sources and recommended reading. Here are some of them: [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], pharmacology textbook). Some of what I've listed are "pop culture" type books, but Margolis is listed in some textbooks as well. I have a feeling that there is probably more out there that isn't on the internet, which isn't entirely surprising given the time period. There's enough to suggest that his work is still considered relatively influential today. He's not Timothy O'Leary, but he's still notable enough. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:47, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Worth keeping for The Child's Garden of Grass alone. Margolis, if I recall correctly, was featured in articles/interviews (?) in Creem and Rolling Stone magazines when that recording was at it's most popular. Passes AUTHOR Nos. 3 & 4. Cypella (talk) 05:02, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:54, 26 August 2013 (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. Secret ^account 02:53, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Jenkins

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

This article was previously deleted because it failed WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. The article was re-created after the St. Louis Rams signed Jenkins as their 4th-string quarterback. The article was not substantially different but an attempted speedy deletion was declined. Nothing important has changed since last year; Jenkins still hasn't played a snap of professional football and it's unlikely that he will. He has received very little coverage during the preseason. Mackensen (talk) 02:00, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NGRIDIRON, still has yet to see a single snap in a regular season game, and most likely won't unless Sam Bradford, Kellen Clemens and Austin Davis go down with injuries, which most likely won't happen, since the Rams would most likely sign another QB. Also, I feel like Jenkins may possibly be cut, so his chances of taking a snap in a regular season game won't be happening anytime soon. Zappa O Mati 02:11, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Nom and ZappaOMati; it failed to meet WP:NGRIDIRON then, and fails to meet it now. Perhaps Jenkins may play a regular season game in the future, but that's a discussion for another day and place. -- StarScream1007 ►Talk 02:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but I'd be open to Userfy. It may be too soon, but it may be too soon only by a few weeks (or never). If there's significant coverage that I'm not finding, he could clear WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:09, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails both GNG and the pro sports low bar. NFL teams carry no more than 3 quarterbacks, by the way — soon to be cut. Carrite (talk) 15:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This subject was already deleted once. See the result of the first debate. Carrite (talk) 15:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NGRIDIRON....William 21:02, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NGRIDIRON. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 20:18, 3 September 2013 (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. Secret ^account 02:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glossary of The King of Braves GaoGaiGar

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

This is an unnecessary collection of in-universe details without any sources to provide real world importance. TTN (talk) 01:14, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It is a horrible mess, but deletion is not clean up and per WP:CSC#2. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The list is an overly thorough mess that would be reduced to nothing by regular standards, likely with nothing remaining but whatever exists in the current article. Wikia exists for such in-depth information, while a fiction article on this site relies on concise summaries to get the information across. There is no worth in keeping this, much like the dozens of other lists that were removed years ago. TTN (talk) 07:40, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LISTN states, "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been." Given CSC and and LIST which allows for glossaries, this page aides in comprehension of the subject and whatever issues should be fixed. The topic is also not 'the glossary', but the notable topic of "The King of Braves GaoGaiGar". All the pages need a lot of work, but deletion is a last resort. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So where are the sources about "the grouping or set in general" ? The topic is glossary/terms/concepts of TKoBGGG (and not TKoBGGG itself, contrary to what you claim, which is located at The King of Braves GaoGaiGar, so where is the secondary coverage about these terms ? What about WP:NOTPLOT ? What can't it be in a main article ?Folken de Fanel (talk) 08:09, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - AfD is not cleanup, but the article is unencyclopedic. I can't see how a list of terminology for a series can be notable. This belongs in a Wikia wiki, not on Wikipedia. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:36, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this articles fails WP:GNG in that there is no significant coverage from reliable independent sources that would establish the topic's real-world notability, and would help the article to be more than a regurgitation of plot that violates WP:NOTPLOT. Since this article also consists in a user's personal summary/interpretation of plot elements from primary sources, there's a huge risk of it being WP:OR. As per Narutolovehinata5, there is no chance for "Glossary" articles to ever meet our guidelines.Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I cited something which says it could meet it, but merging or cleaning it up is fine. It does not need to meet "real world notability" to exist as a list. The same as how most of these PLOT violating "list of episodes" pages are. Japanese wiki frequently has a section devoted to terminology on their pages. I'll move to merge, but let's not delete that which can be saved. AFD is not clean up afterall. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LISTN "a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". The whole point of WP:N is that "Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large", which includes lists. So yes, it needs to meet "real world notability". Being a list is not a free pass. Most of "lists of episodes" do meet the criteria as most TV episodes have received collective attention in secondary sources. That is not the case of glossary/plot clarification.Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what are you thinking of as the "topic" here, Folken? postdlf (talk) 16:18, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The topic is "terms from the anime and manga series The King of Braves GaoGaiGar and The King of Braves GaoGaiGar FINAL". Find independent reliable sources for that and the article can stay as a stand alone, otherwise it has to be deleted or merged.Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy to ChrisGualtieri. If Chris is willing to improve the article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is fundamentally not a glossary. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:18, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is fundamentally not a glossary. Occasionally a glossary may be necessary as a reference appendix to a large category of articles, such as Glossary of poetry terms or Glossary of botanical terms. One based on an individual cartoon show is pretty ridiculous though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:48, 28 August 2013 (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 merge with List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters#TSR 2012 - Fiend Folio (1981). Some have supported keeping a separate article, but with the article being as brief as it is, a merge does not seem unreasonable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:56, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Flail snail

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

This article does not assert notability. It is simply a minor publication list from primary sources without any actual real world information. TTN (talk) 01:04, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Gong show 01:58, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Gong show 01:58, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not being independently notable, unless someone knows of a valid redirect/merge target. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC)Merge into List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:43, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Flail Snail has been cited independently as being an example of a bad monster/game design. But the current article would need to be rewritten to reflect that. Something I do not have the free time for. Web Warlock (talk) 11:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which sounds to me like it will have only received a trivial amount of coverage from a few sources, most of which would be unreliable. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 13:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
no independent third party sources to indicate notability. delete or merge if there is a suitable target. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:48, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters, unless there is evidence of meaningful information from the Paizo and Necromancer sources, which might make it possible to expand and keep/restore the article. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 04:00, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that both Paizo and Necromancer are primary sources for the creature and cannot be used to establish notability.Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:42, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. Not notable enough to have its own page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:47, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Web Warlock. Multiple sources already are documented in the article, only one of which is primary, and the fact that it has been subject of ridicule within the gaming community makes up for the fact that it hasn't been seen in spin-off media like video games. Jclemens (talk) 05:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly doubt any of those are reliable, or that the coverage is in-depth. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:18, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sources listed that are not TSR/Official Dungeons and Dragons are merely primary source game guides themselves. If Flail snail is as our topic sentence indicates a "dungeons and dragons monster", then those sources are not about the actual subject of the article, they are about a different critter in a different game that is also called "flail snail". If the article is about "the fictional critter used in multiple game sources" then the Necromancer and Piazo sources are as primary non independent for that subject as TSR sources are for the specific D&D critter. In addition, the author of the Piazo material Colin McComb is long time former TSR employee, and not someone "independent". And the " -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters or Delete, article fails WP:GNG per the complete lack of significant coverage in reliable independent secondary sources.Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:42, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per web warlock - I recall out-of-universe discussion along the same lines (flaw in game/monster design). Sadly I have just rid myself of alot of roleplaying material :( Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:12, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nooooooo! If not for the ridiculous costs of international shipping, I would have gladly taken it off your hands. ;) BOZ (talk) 14:18, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised that I need to point out to such experienced editors that ~~Webwarlock's~~ an assertion that "sources exist" is not really worth a hill of beans without the presentation of sources to verify that they do in fact cover the subject in a significant manner and were actually produced by independent, reliable sources. And thus "per ~~webwarlock~~ X, because they made a claim that sources exist" are of even less value. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking the same; also, web warlock didn't vote either... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

oops, I edited my comment above slightly. I think webwarlock has may not have yet actually !voted because he is looking to see if he can find the sources.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters seems reasonable here. Technical 13 (talk) 15:39, 5 September 2013 (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. Jujutacular (talk) 18:58, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Richman

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Notability seems marginal at best, doesn't seem to be anything substantial other than youtube hits and notable relatives, entire article reads more like a promotional bio than an encyclopedia article, and no real sources beyond a few fluff press releases and blog reviews Jac16888 ^Talk 01:03, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Gong show 01:55, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Gong show 01:56, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Gong show 01:56, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per these sources: 1 2 3. These could be just simple promotional stuff, which is why my vote's a weak one. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 18:14, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first one is maybe borderline, the second two are clearly press-releases by the subjects PR (note that the same articles can be found on more than one website)--Jac16888 ^Talk 18:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the first is also a pr piece, by LUCK Media & Marketing. Also available on the Business Wire. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:36, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks independent coverage. This is one big advert. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Help Requested. Could I ask for assistance with how this article should be worded so that we can keep our (many hours) of work putting it together? I've been reviewing other Wiki articles with Oliver's managers and felt we were following protocol. We felt the newly added References would help to establish credibility, but we will remove those if you feel they don't do this. I would be grateful for any direction. Oliver's most recent work is his role in the new Craig Robinson sitcom which has been picked up by NBC for a possible mid-season replacement. He is also working on another New Media pilot "Captain Bill's" produced by Michael Zack and Alessandra Ascoli. Thank you in advance for any help! jquinn33 (talk) 04:10, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The problem isn't with how the article is worded, it's a question of whether the subject is notable by Wikipedia's standards: as well as the general notability guideline, the guidelines for entertainers are at WP:ENTERTAINER and for musicians at WP:MUSIC. Since this individual is still living, the Biographies of living persons policy must be followed. In addition, Mr. Richman's managers should not be involved in editing any articles on him or his work, per the conflict of interest guideline. And if you are working that closely with them, you may have a conflict of interest, in which case you should not be working on this article either. — Gwalla | Talk 22:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Collasping per WP:WALLOFTEXT

We object to deletion of this article on the following grounds: Wikipedia prides itself that it is factual and objective. However, many of the "facts" about our famous family (Buddy Hackett, Sandy Hackett, Peter Mark Richman, Ron Miller), written by non-managers, etc. are WRONG....this evidences Wikipedia's total inability to manage accuracy over its content...better to let strangers contribute to an article, making it totally inaccurate. Instead, Wiki has exercised its censorship power by deciding, based on its employee's opinions (rather than the public's), what is "notable" and what is not. Obviously, this is subjective and NOT at all objective or factually based, but rather someone's misguided, skewed opinion. Our dealings with Wikipedia (we have had other issues - this is not an isolated case) have been less than professional, often dealing with clerks who are sarcastic, power-hungry and biased. This is evidence that the so-called online "objective, factually based" encyclopedia is nothing more than groups of subordinates who support each other's skewed and misguided opinions. The clearly ineffective idea that total strangers with inaccurate information with possible hidden agendas have the freedom to alter the public's opinion, simply by typing in whatever they like, while people with accurate knowledge of articles they deem "notable" are prohibited, is a new kind of censorship - clearly a DANGER to readers everywhere. Obviously, the subordinates at Wikipedia have opinions which they deem more important than the public-at-large.

When it became clear to us that Wikipedia would impose it's own "opinion" about what people want to read by determining what is "notable" and what is "not" and that they opened our article up for "debate" (a forum in which their subordinates can exercise their "opinion," power and agenda), we did go ahead and delete the content on our article, as we do not want to subject an innocent child to the negative, lynch mob which allows and encourages support for its own frenzy. To our surprise, the article content was restored by Wikipedia so that its judgement of whether or not an innocent child is "notable" enough can continue to be debated "publicly" (actually, amongst Wikipedia subordinates). Not only do "we, the people," have absolutely NO control over the purported and "promoted" objective online encyclopedia, which defines its existence by allowing the public to think that its content is informational, and open for public debate, we have absolutely NO control as to whether or not we wish to have an article on their godawful, inaccurate, hypocritical, purported online objective website. If Wikipedia finds a so-called forum in which to release the stress of their subordinates, they have the right to do the exact opposite of what birthed this so-called forum to begin with - anything to keep the lynch mob feeding.

I request that a new forum be opened for "public" debate in which "we, the people" can judge Wikipedia's policies and justify the existence of the people over on the other end reading this right now. If Wikipedia is truly as objective as it states that it is, let's open a new forum. I, for one, as well as many others I know, will be very happy to "debate" the process in which individuals are chosen and/or allowed to determine the future of articles of interest to the public-at-large as well as other Wikipedia defects. In our case, if Wikipedia wants to delete this article, I guess that is its option. However, unable to delete an article WE started and which no one else has made updates to besides Wiki admin, when we remove the content (due to their warnings) and it is simply put back without our consent, that becomes a legal matter for our attorney regarding our legal rights - something, at which point, Wikipedia will have to answer for - we ALL answer to a court of law - yes, even Wikipedia.

Wikipedia can either 1) keep this article up and delete its warnings - allowing "we, the people" to contribute to an article we deem "notable" or; 2) delete this article, as it warned it would do and we will can simply call it a day. If not, it is requested that you immediately post your justification for allowing this lynch mob to continue (this would allow for a "real" debate about Wikipedia), as Wikipedia obviously does not want or believe (according to its "policy") that this article should remain. It is currently unclear as to what reason then, (other than lynch mobbing) justifies the purpose that this article remains, considering the circumstances and facts of this case, other than to allow Wikipedia contributors to voice their "subjective" opinions while others are unable to effect any change at all, regardless of their "opinions." Further, it is also requested that any legal basis and authority Wikipedia asserts in this case, be posted as well. This is the real debate.

Any "contributors" out there who have had similar censorship issues with the "others" (purported "contributors"....although I'm not sure what they contribute other than creating self-serving forums or purported "discussions") on the other side of Wikipedia, please post your comments, as is our turn to sit in judgement of them and get our lynch mob going.

DO NOT REMOVE this post. It is important that this message remains so that the public-at-large can determine whether or not Wikipedia is a new form of censorship disguised as an objective, informational online website. The REMOVAL or DELETION of this post will prove my point and it will be reposted in some other Wikipedia "forum/discussion" which we deem to be more appropriate for this topic.

LisaDMillerHackett (talk) 23:32, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite a rant, I'm not going to go through and point out all the ways in which it is wrong but I will make a few comments, before which I will say please do not make legal threats. A) If the original creator of the articles wishes it deleted they are free to do so by nominating it for deletion under CSD:G7 - not by simply blanking it. B) You seem to misunderstand how Wikipedia works, there are no subordinates, clerks or employees - everybody is a volunteer with the same amount of editorial power - yourself included, and nobody has any right, legal or otherwise to a Wikipedia article (Wikipedia being a private website) C) it has been judged by some editors, myself included, that currently your son does not meet the requirements of our policies in order for him to have an article, had you taken the time to read some of our policies you would have discovered that this could have happened, likewise you would have learnt that you have absolutely zero control or ownership over an article - if you didn't want the article to be possibly deleted, you should not have created it. D) The presence of this article is clearly part of an attempt to promote the subject - something which we absolutely do not allow under any circumstance. E) You seem to be under the impression that this discussion is some kind of attack or "smear campaign" against your family. It is not. The simple fact is that thousands of Wikipedia articles are created everyday, most of them about people who are not particularly noteworthy - we can't have articles about everybody and his Grandma hence this discussion and the thousands of others like it. I would be happy to discuss this with you further, provided you can lay of the attacks, insults and threats--Jac16888 ^Talk 00:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Lisa's attempt to derail this entire discussion and the rampant conflict of interests issues aside, I've gone ahead and done a search for sources.

Richman was featured on a morning show on a Fox News station here
Richman was discussed by Lisa Dawn Miller (who is presumably the above editor) in an interview with Talent Spotlight Magazine here.
He also has an interview here with Champagne Sundays Magazine.

The magazines are not particularly strong indicators of notability-- Talent Spotlight is his own mother talking about him. Champagne Sundays does not appear to be a particularly well-circulated or important publication. That leaves the Fox News interview, which is rather short, and basically constitutes an instance of having a single source with significant coverage. Sources currently in the article are either trivial mentions (i.e. here), unreliable (i.e. IMDB entries or this review blog), or are basically press releases (i.e. here). Some coverage is there, but it's generally too sparse, promotional, or unreliable and I can't support keeping the article on that basis. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 06:09, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is the wrong venue for discussing opinions, Texan or otherwise, on how Wikipedia fundamentally works.

Texas Court of Appeals 14th District rules that "Wikipedia is inherently "unreliable" - I understand why. See discussion below. This needs to be circulated more:

http://law.marquette.edu/facultyblog/2008/11/24/court-holds-that-wikipedia-entries-are-inherently-unreliable/

This is my last post regarding this issue, as I actually do have a real life.

This response is not intended to be insulting but is rather, a response based on my experience in dealing with a Wikipedia community I do not believe works. If it is insulting, that means you are simply taking it personal which you advise the subjects of “notability” determination to reject. With regards to the first post (in response to mine above – I can’t refer to a specific person because everyone who posts on here has an unidentifiable, nameless handle and I challenge anyone to give me their real contact information since you all have mine). In response to A) I don’t have the time to follow a procedure I don’t agree with – it seems counterproductive to me. If you want to delete it, PLEASE do! That’s our goal too! B) This is America. Everyone in America has the right to file a civil legal against another party, period. However, deciding whether a case is “notable” (to use your terminology) or in the real world, has legal merit is not up to nameless volunteers, but rather, a court of law. It’s called the U.S. Judicial System. C) Then, delete it. There is NO purpose of this discussion. We all agree, however, our reasons differ. No one in our family including the administrators of the estates, myself included do NOT wish to have a Wikipedia page. EVERYTHING is incorrect in the articles of our famous family members. D) We do not view Wikipedia as a successful avenue to “promote” anything. The views to the subject’s article here (as well as other famous family members) are not “notable” or significant. The subject has already shared the stage with Stevie Wonder LIVE for 8000 people and appeared on major network television, including the nationally syndicated “Young Icons,” clearly more notable than Wikipedia. Regarding the “Grandma” remark, which apparently you don’t find insulting or “attacking” to write, I will make the assumption that you won’t find this insulting either: While apparently Wikipedia doesn’t let “everyone and their Grandma” have a Wikipedia page, they DO let everyone and the Grandma contribute to articles on subjects they know nothing about. This is evidenced by the inaccurate information that has been posted about our famous family – which is why we don’t want these pages on a source we consider highly unreliable.

In response to the Weak one (last post), I have not attempted anything. I’ve succeeded in expressing a truthful perspective, based on fact not opinion. This has obviously gotten under someone’s skin by simply stating the facts and speaking the truth. Your attempt to give an appearance as though you’ve searched for reliable sources and your subjective opinion (and that’s all it is – is YOUR opinion), about the notability of those sources, contradicts your reference below to Wikipedia’s “conflict of interest issues” in which it is stated that:

“COI is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia.” Further, “COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. When advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest.”

This editor is trying to REMOVE this article and others of our famous family. We DON’T want to be on this purported encyclopedia. Further, this idea that Wikipedia contributors produce a “neutral, reliably sourced” encyclopedia is simply untrue and I can support this by stating that; A) the articles regarding other famous family members are grossly inaccurate; B) Whoever made the last entry was conveniently selective in choosing online sources regarding this article – leaving out major network television appearances, such as “Young Icons,” which is a nationally syndicated television show and making a determination that a morning FOX show is not noteworthy, when in fact, it is and this subject has appeared on several major network morning and other shows. It appears that Wikipedia contributors are anything BUT neutral, deciding for themselves what sources are “noteworthy,” then, if trying to advance their own agenda, as in this case (arguing for the sake of arguing – and accomplishing nothing), claim that any “noteworthy” sources, such as FOX or any other major network appears, are simply “unreliable.” It is blatantly obvious that a contributor can paint whatever story they want by stating that a if credible source is indeed “noteworthy,” it is simply is deemed “unreliable” and if the source is indeed “reliable,” it is simply deemed not “noteworthy.” Further, it is easy to omit reliable, noteworthy sources in order to advance one’s own agenda. C) Wikipedia is anything but “neutral.” When one of you don’t like what I’ve written, whether factual or not, you can simply mark my comments as a “wall of text” in which the Wikipedia definition states that my comments are “intentionally disruptive.” Again, who determines whether or not something is “disruptive?” My intent was not to be disruptive but rather, have an open, HONEST conversation about “policies” everyone seems to link to which have no method for applying such “policy” to one’s comments or text. In other words, anyone can state that one has a “conflict of interest” or is “being disruptive,” or that a post is “damaging” simply if a contributor doesn’t like what they are hearing. However, there is no process in which to determine what facts, if any, even support another contributor’s assessment or use of a “policy.” Therefore, this “neutral, reliable” online encyclopedia is run by unqualified people, with limited or no knowledge of, not only the article to which they contribute, but to “policies” in which they are not required to justify their application. Further, if someone doesn’t like what they read (in this case, judgments about themselves and their use of, or lack thereof, “policies,” rather than the individual and subjects THEY judge), they can simply, delete those comments and/or link to a policy where no determination by an objective party is actually made as to whether or not that policy even applies.

My conclusion and resolution to all of this has not changed; A) please delete this article; B) please delete articles of all of our famous family members; C) My efforts here are a complete waste of time because someone with a nameless handle and computer to hide behind, will simply delete these comments and/or attach a link to a policy in which there is no reliable method to determine whether or not it applies; D) After researching cases involving Wikipedia, legal and otherwise, I have concluded that noteworthy, reputable, significant and reliable parties do NOT view Wikipedia as a reliable source of information, for all the reasons I stated above AND for the very specific comment posted above by one of the Wikipedia contributors regarding “grandmothers.” Wikipedia simply lets everyone and their grandmother edit an article, most of them unqualified to do so. Wikipedia contributors are an unreliable source of credible information and therefore, Wikipedia is unreliable and not noteworthy enough to be a reference regarding information about our family. E) Please delete ALL articles regarding our famous family.LisaDMillerHackett (talk) 03:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no interest in responding to the majority of your comments, which largely misinterpret or ignore completely the points I made, but I will say that "everybody and his Grandma" is not intended to be any kind of attack or personal comment, rather that it is a common phrase where I am from which simply means to "a lot of people". As I have already said, if you cool it with the agressive behaviour and stop taking this personally, read some of the pages you have been pointed to instead of googling how bad Wikipedia is, you might that you will get more assistance--Jac16888 ^Talk 16:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, WP:NOTPROMOTION. The sources seem to indicate that it's WP:TOOSOON. -- Trevj (talk) 13:33, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I think that Trevj hit the nail on the head with WP:TOOSOON. Technical 13 (talk) 15:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There is no question that this kid's family is famous (I loved the late comedian Buddy Hackett, FWIW), and that many of the said members are notable. I'm not sure about this kid, however. I recall that in the past we have tended to delete the articles of child performing artists of marginal notability. Bearian (talk) 20:27, 5 September 2013 (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. Jujutacular (talk) 19:05, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Addis Sheraton Shopping Center

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

Unverifable (patently false, in fact), orphan, not notable. Fails WP:GNG. Simfan34 (talk) 00:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. Gong show 01:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Gong show 01:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Orphan is not a valid criteria for deletion and this third-party source says "Some of the larger hotels complexes in Ethiopia's proud capital of Addis Ababa also have their own small shopping arcades, including the Addis Sheraton Shopping Centre." so it's neither "unverifiable" nor, as the nominator asserts, "patently false". Now as to notability I have my doubts but without further research I cannot make an informed decision. - Dravecky (talk) 03:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:20, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable, not sure if it's a real place, or just an association of the shopping center with Sheraton. Caffeyw (talk) 07:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG Superman7515 (talk) 10:01, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG. Seems to be a real place but not notable. No sourced content worth considering merging anywhere, unlikely search term. -- Trevj (talk) 13:36, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this does in fact fail WP:GNG. Technical 13 (talk) 15:50, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nestor Velazquez

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

fails WP:GNG. The Banner talk 00:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 01:09, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Gong show 01:47, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Gong show 01:48, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Gong show 01:48, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Gong show 01:48, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Gong show 01:50, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no coverage found for this person in reliable sources; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO at this time. Gong show 01:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG -- Green Cardamom (talk) 04:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE I removed the Early Life and Personal Life sections as a copyright violation of http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2374564/bio - see talk page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, claims of notability barely prevent A7 but are clearly far short of the mark for WP:GNG or any other notability criteria. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:37, 28 August 2013 (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 and redirect to WAMP. Black Kite (talk) 00:48, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

EasyPHP

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

Improper restoration of article: easily qualifies as G4, as all the problems that were initially noted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of WAMPs (2nd nomination) still exist. Since some take an unnecessarily literal view of G4, it seems that we will have to have to repeat the AFD discussion.—Kww(talk) 00:09, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Gong show 01:44, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — I found a single mention in google scholar and several mentions in a couple of O'Reilly Media books, but there's just not enough there to build an article. Lots of pointers on how to install and use the software, but nothing discussing the software proper (particularly no reviews). In my opinion, doesn't meet the guidelines in WP:NSOFT. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 02:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Single mention? I see 479 on GScholar. It's not really a software, it's a local-host development platform which includes pre-configured softwares (Apache, Phpmyadmin & MySQL), I guess the proper technical term for this is Solution stack. Tachfin (talk) 14:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely a poor choice of words on my part. I'm guessing that I meant a single paper that I could classify as "used" instead of "mentioned", but even that's not clear. Thanks for pointing that out; I'll definitely be more careful (and give links) in the future. That said, I'm still not seeing the kind of reviews and articles discussing EasyPHP that we might hang an article on. If you have pointers to those I'll definitely reconsider my !vote. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 00:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per failing WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT; there simply isn't enough coverage to keep the article. The fact the article was written from scratch is enough for it to be "substantially different" and not G4-worthy, regardless of concerns in the prior AfD. Particularly as at least two admins have expressed the view that it is different enough. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:45, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (but not G4). It needs to demonstrate notability. So far it is failing to do so. Four sources, and none of them even in English? That's a product that's having to scrape the barrel pretty hard. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:01, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement on English Wiki for references to be in English.--Tachfin (talk) 14:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 13:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - same as last time, sources do not demonstrate notability. - MrOllie (talk) 14:03, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (failing that, Redirect to WAMP) at 422 hits on G Books, 479 on GScholar & 560,000 hits on Google it easily passes WP:GNG IMO. Also note that one of its versions has been downloaded some 225,000 times on Cnet further indicative of popularity. Additionally, per WP:Otherstuffexists, there is no reason to have articles on the Linux & MAC equivalents (cf. MAMP, DAMP (software bundle), Bitnami, Apache2Triad) and ignore EasyPHP being the popular Windows equivalent. It will be really absurd of Wikipedia to have a red link for something as popular. (note the number of people looking for it even as it has been deleted [25])--Tachfin (talk) 14:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If this is to be redirected, then a merge to phpMyAdmin would seem more appropriate.

LAMP is commonplace, WAMP almost as much so. EasyPHP is (AIUI) no more than a bundle of WAMP with added PhpMyAdmin. Notability for a bundle is difficult. One has to show that not only are the components notable (we surely agree here that they are), but that they resultant bundle specifically has gained some interest from independent sources. I'm not seeing this. As the only vaguely interesting feature to this WAMP bundle is the inclusion of PhpMyAdmin (not generally seen as an essential part of WAMP), then that's a better place to hold this content.

Also an article to hold some encyclopedic content. This article is still no more than its See also list. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:50, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GHITS are not any evidence of notability, Tachfin. There are 254,000 hits on my username, for example. "EasyPHP" is almost certainly going to turn up lots of "PHP made easy" type how-to guides, for example. Also, WP:OSE is an argument to avoid, not one to use. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:48, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Lukeno94 I doubt your username returns any hits on Gbooks/Gscholar. Also, WP:OTHERSTUFF ≠ WP:Otherstuffexists --Tachfin (talk) 11:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

3 hits on Gbooks, 1 or two on Gscholar, so yes, it does. And your argument will be based on a lot of "PHP made easy", or "easy PHP"-type results, not EasyPHP, for the most part. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:37, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can buy that references are mostly in French because this is a "francophone website", according to the last reference (whatever that means for software, presumably that documentation is mostly in French or something like that). But I don't think those sources confer enough notability for Wikipedia. Coverage is brief, and look at what else is the table for the last source phpindex.com, phpfrance.com etc. These may be worth a mention in the articles on PHP etc. as the favorite forums or distributions in a given country, but aren't notable enough for stand-alone pages. The first book, which has a couple of pages about it is really a bottom-feeder publication; 90% of that is screenshots of the installer at every step. Someone not using his real name (talk) 12:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Someone not using his real name (talk) 12:34, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to WAMP seems reasonable to me as I can see this as a search term (stats.grok.se indicates "EasyPHP has been viewed 5037 times in the last 90 days."). Technical 13 (talk) 15:54, 5 September 2013 (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. Secret ^account 02:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RJ NILANJAN

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

fails WP:PEOPLE and WP:GNG - Jayanta Nath ^{(Talk|Contrb)} 08:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm not aware of any notability being generated from DJing on a radio station whilst gaining little other coverage. The article is an utter mess, although a massive trout goes out to those who spammed TEN tags for improvement into the top, without attempting to improve some of the issues themselves (like the bare refs.) Even if this guy IS notable, TNT it and start from scratch. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:50, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:47, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:47, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:47, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've done a small amount of basic cleanup and wikification. Should this article survive the process, moving to "RJ Nilanjan" instead of the all-caps name is strongly recommended. - Dravecky (talk) 04:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet GNG.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:31, 3 September 2013 (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.

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chen Shiqiang}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sven Sester}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Dudley Geer}}