Knowledge (XXG)

:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 December 14 - Knowledge (XXG)

Source 📝

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 speedy keep per WP:SK#1. The nomination fails to advance a valid argument for deletion. For examples of valid deletion reasons, see WP:DEL-REASON. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000 22:42, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Un-needed article. TheEpTic (talk) 22:24, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Provisional keep - Type species of the genus Decantha, synonymous with Decantha boreasella (Reticulated Decantha Moth; see List of moths of North America (MONA 855-2311)), might also have been known as Oecophora borkhausenii Chris857 (talk) 23:08, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Are you sure about that synonym claim? I can find no RS to back that up. You're right on Oecophora borkhausenii, since the species was known before the genus Decantha was defined (and initially, D. borkhausenii was the only species in the genus). -- 101.119.15.64 (talk) 11:25, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
On checking, it seems that the American specimens were split off into D. boreasella as a separate species, which is why D. borkhausenii does not appear on MONA. -- 101.119.15.64 (talk) 11:30, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 23:10, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:37, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Non-notable rabble rouser that dabbles in conspiracy circles. No evidence of notability, PROD deleted the article but it was recently challenged. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:12, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:39, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Top of The World, Tennessee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable place. Contrary to the article's description of it as an "unincorporated community", this seems to be a landowner's promotional name for a resort real estate property. "Top of the World Estates" is the only relevant listing in GNIS. It is described in GNIS as a "locale", which is defined to mean "Place at which there is or was human activity; it does not include populated places, mines, and dams (battlefield, crossroad, camp, farm, ghost town, landing, railroad siding, ranch, ruins, site, station, windmill)." (See U.S. Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System: Articles for deletion/Log/2013 December 14.) The name also appears on a detailed county road map, but that hardly indicates notability.

The reference cited in the article (www.topoftheworldtn.com) is a landowner association website, which suggests that the existence of multiple homes or vacation homes. Other online sources include this page, which looks like a real estate promotion (and cites the Knowledge (XXG) article as its source) and a FoxNews piece about school bus service being blocked when the US federal government shut down in October. The closest thing I can find to notability is a list entry in a Tennessee place names book (published 2001) from a reputable publisher (but full of what appears to be original research).

Delete this, because Knowledge (XXG) does not exist to help promote real estate sales.

NOTE: A Google search for "Top of the World Tennessee" turns up a number of hits for other places, including a "Top of the World Farm" in another part of the state and one or two vacation rental cabins in a different place in the Smoky Mountains locations with the name "Top of the World." Orlady (talk) 21:04, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep: Inhabited verified community, which are always kept. The mention in the 2001 Tennessee place names book and the county road map seems sufficient. Its not simply some marketing-created not-built subdivision of log cabins inside some larger CDP or town. Not sure whether "Top O' The World" is better name.--Milowent • 05:17, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  • The trouble is that is is not an inhabited verified community. Inhabited verified communities in the United States are listed in GNIS as "populated places". GNIS generously treats many trailer parks and residential subdivisions (entities that most Wikipedians do not consider to be worthy of articles) as "populated places". The county in which Top of the World is located has 209 "populated places" listed in GNIS (of which just 7 are incorporated municipalities and 4 are CDPs), but Top of the World is not one of them. Top of the World is not listed in GNIS as a populated place, but only as a "locale." Locales are expressly indicated not to be populated places; the other entities in the same county that are listed as GNIS "locales" include country clubs, campgrounds, industrial parks, named farms, named houses, and the former (historic) sites of mills. --Orlady (talk) 19:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Otherstuffexists is an actually an argument for keeping, when you've items get challenged and kept on a regular basis. I randomly picked that one because it was one of Coal Town Guy's stubs I fixed up awhile back.--Milowent • 04:16, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak delete: I was a bit puzzled when this was created. It is essentially a resort property as Orlady describes it. If we opt to keep, the lede should be reworded to reflect what it actually is. Calling it an "unincorporated community" along the lines of nearby Walland or Happy Valley is misleading. Bms4880 (talk) 19:18, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
On what basis are you concluding its a resort? The websites are crappy looking, and the occasional references to it in local press don't make it sound swanky, just a community which is distinct geographically from other communities.--Milowent • 03:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
In the mountains of Tennessee, the word "resort" does not necessarily connote "swanky."
Note that those same "crappy looking" websites you refer to are the sources for the content in this article. Are you saying that crappy looking websites indicate a notable topic, but slick websites do not? Where in the Knowledge (XXG) notability guidelines does that criterion appear? --Orlady (talk) 05:17, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
The crappy websites don't indicate notability at all in my opinion. The map and news references do, proving its treated as an inhabited community, and won't be a precedent for resort-spam.--Milowent • 04:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Here is the website for Chestnut Tops, a gated community that's part of (and typical of) the Top of the World development. In its history section, it states the area was purchased in the 1960s by Jourleman and Headrick. I couldn't find anything on Jourleman, but I determined the "Headrick" refers to a developer named Charles Headrick. On Headrick, I found this site (a library finding aid) which contains the following entry, dated June 27, 1965: "Roy and Charles Headrick are developing the Top of the World Estates and nearby commercial and other buildings between the Great Smoky Mountains National Park and the Foothills Parkway." Bms4880 (talk) 16:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
That is consistent with the TN place name book, which says Charles Headrick gave the community its name. There was likely no zoning in a remote area like that in the 1960s, so they had free rein to sell lots.--Milowent • 16:42, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
No need to speculate on zoning. There was no zoning in unincorporated portions (nor in some incorporated municipalities) of Blount County until circa 2000. I am not aware, however, that the absence of zoning somehow imparts notability (per WP:Notability) upon every rural tract of land that gets subdivided (nor converted to a church retreat center, trailer park, horseback riding stable, airplane landing strip, or other common uses of rural land). --Orlady (talk) 05:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep: I just started Lake in the Sky (Tennessee), the lake that the community encircles, and Bms4880 added to it. The lake article gives some information about the community that could be copied to this article. The big news is that a fire station was opened last year, there was a controlled forest burn this spring and the main road was closed a couple of months ago, cutting off the school buses. A small community around a small lake, not a place where much happens, but notable enough. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:55, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:42, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

31st AVN Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional article; all sources are either press releases from the event's promoter, promo pages, or blog-posted lists cut-and-pasted from the publicity material. The article is a massive redlink farm, with the potential for serious BLP violations, since the article's author(s) haven't bothered to check how many of the fake porn performer names also correspond to notable people. I found and corrected three bad links in a cursory review, but there are scores more to check, absent responsible behavior by the author(s). Aside from being a NOTDIR violation, this is a promo page created by an SPA who's apparently an industry publicist. If the event actually gets sufficient reliable source coverage (likely after it takes place), content can be written, but until then its sponsors should be paying for its advertising in more appropriate places. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:52, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


I can agree with Hullaballoo above in part (yes, it's a redlink farm, but I don't think it's promotional), and I do hope more people weigh in on this discussion.

First the disagreement: Yes, at this point, the sources are primarily press releases, but that would change after the event, as Hullaballoo notes. However, the article itself is just five sentences long and consists primarily of what the event is, where it's held, who's hosting and who's been named for an achievement award; there's no shill for where to buy tickets, etc. If you have a look at the page for the 86th Academy Awards, that's the same information (or less) as is posted there, and because the Oscars haven't been held yet, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and Oscars.org are the main sources used (six of the 11 citations), though that will change after their awards ceremony, too, but I wouldn't call the 86th Oscars page promotional either, though I can understand how some might. (In theory any entry about most any upcoming event promotes it in some way.)

Perhaps the problem here is that Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences is not a commercial entity, while Adult Video News is, and thus might stand to benefit commercially by a Knowledge (XXG) entry. But regardless, both the Oscars and the AVN Awards are the premiere industry awards shows in their industries, so for the article portion alone, at this point, I don't have a problem. As for the lists of nominees, well, the source of the schedule and the list of Oscar nominees is the AMPA, so the source for the AVN nominees should be AVN.

Meanwhile, the main AVN Award page is far too long in size and so new pages for each year's have been the logical step to keep the main entry from growing further; that's why I created the page, and I did so in hopes that others will add to it. Hullaballoo's statement "this is a promo page created by an SPA who's apparently an industry publicist" is incorrect. I certainly have no connection with anyone in the industry, nor have I ever even met anyone involved with the AVN Awards or any such event, and I don't even live in the U.S. (And please note, if I were an industry shill, I would've added the production companies' names to every nominee, because that's what AVN promotes in their listings and that's primarily what the industry would want. I didn't do that because to me that's just free advertising for production companies and an encyclopedia page noting the nominees and, ultimately, the winners (which have always been deemed to be noteworthy for the 30 years preceding) is not the place for that. (I doubt that it matters to the average person what company produced any given adult movie any more than it does with the Oscars, but if I'm wrong someone will let me know!)

Now the agreement: Yes, "the article is a massive redlink farm." I added the nominees from the 18 categories that are part of the awards show (or at least were the categories used in last year's show; I have no knowledge of which categories will be used this year, but they don't seem to change much). There are more red links than I'd like, but most were in the "Best New Starlet" category, and frankly, since this category is for someone new, most of those nominees shouldn't have Knowledge (XXG) pages yet because they haven't established notability. The other main area with red links is European movie sex scenes and I'm guessing many of those actresses have non-English Knowledge (XXG) pages (though I haven't checked.)

However, here's the bigger problem: From what I've read, most of the awards (it looks like 150 or more) are actually handed out a day or two before the awards show, during an industry trade show. The largest proportion of the red links are in 14 more categories added later by a user named Rebecca1990 (talk), whom I don't know. I haven't any idea if that user is part of the industry or why she (I'll assume it's "she") added all those categories, so I hope she contributes to this talk page. Personally, I would not have added those 14 categories, because AVN doesn't deem them to be important enough to give them their awards during event itself. That leads me to think they're considered to be minor categories. However, I'd like to hear further discussion and if Rebecca1990 or others can convince me otherwise, I'm open to reconsidering.

I certainly do agree with Hullaballoo that everyone needs to "check how many of the fake porn performer names also correspond to notable people" and I can assure everyone that I checked every one of the nominations in the categories I posted, although we're all human and I can't rule out that I missed one. (I did, however, fail to fix links to 14 disambiguation pages while creating the pages; I noted them at the time I was checking links, but then forgot to fix them at the end (my bad)!) Luckily, DPL Bot caught that overnight and upon receiving DPL Bot's email the next day, when I went back to fix it, a user named The Banner (talk) had already done so (thank you!).

I'm interested in what others have to say about the issues raised on this page and what other solutions there might be, and I'm sure Hullaballoo is, too, so please weigh in, folks! Thanks!

Pumik9 (talk) 23:58, 14 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.103.234 (talk)

Oops.. Sorry! I forgot to log in. I certify that the preceding statement was indeed mine! Pumik9 (talk) 00:03, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:43, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Declined PROD. The sources in the article are a blog by the site creator, the site itself, and alexa info. I've been unable to find any independent, reliable sources for this ~1.5-month-old website. Looks to be Knowledge (XXG):Up and coming next big thing. Chris857 (talk) 20:05, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 23:02, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:44, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

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

No indication that the organization meets the notability guidelines for inclusion. The single article given as reference is the only secondary source I could find on Google about them. §FreeRangeFrog 19:45, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete - I have no idea whether this organisation is involved in "ossible fraudulent schemes" because there is no reliable sources. In any case, that's irrelevant to notability. The Tucson Weekly article isn't useful as a source as the bulk of the material in the article is jut a big quote from Southern Arizona Pride's web site. -- Whpq (talk) 22:31, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
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 Promenade Pictures. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:45, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Doesn't seem to be happening. See - the production company's website is off-line and has been for a few months, nothing on IMDB, etc. Dougweller (talk) 19:06, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Merge and redirect to Promenade Pictures. Per WP:NFF, animated films which have not started final animation are not to have their own articles. There is some independent coverage of this planned film and there are many notable names attached, but it does now appear that the studio is defunct. Merge for now, and rebuild if the film does get released in the future. Ivanvector (talk) 19:48, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
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. In light of further investigation (and the author's history of creating hoaxes), I've G3'd it. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:36, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

DJ (2013 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD declined by author without reason; there appears to be no evidence of existence but the common title makes it hard to search, and thus I'd rather send this to AfD than CSD G3. Unreferenced entirely. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:24, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:48, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Appears to be a promotion for an obscure product by Huawei. Little evidence of notability in terms of 3rd party sources. Fails WP:GNG. Logical Cowboy (talk) 17:47, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Delete. The subject and context of the article are unclear; if it is to be kept, it is in need of serious cleanup to be suitable for an average reader. A Google search turned up hardly any reliable third-party sources. The article fails WP:NPOV and WP:SOAP because it seems to be biased towards the subject and might have only been written as a promotion. If the technology is as notable as this source claims, more reliable third-party sources should turn up in huge future, but for now, the subject is not very notable. TCMemoire (talk) 18:12, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:49, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

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

This is an article on a compound that either exists transiently in small quantities due to radioactive decay of its astatine atom, or doesn't exist at all. Either way, it lacks good references; the only one is part of an exam to test how students can make predictions based on existing information. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:06, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Delete unless something better than a test answer can be found as a reference. Theoretically there could be a perastatic acid, analagous to perbromic and periodic (that's per-iodic not periodic = 'occasionally') acids. Most ghits are blogs and unreliable sources. It may be discovered and uses found for it tomorrow (or more likely Monday...). As it stands, it looks unlikely to achieve notability. (The perastatate ion is mentioned in Astatine, so there might be a case for redirect to that article.) Peridon (talk) 17:00, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete. Only one source; unable to find any coverage of the subject. Absolutely no Google Scholar results; the sole Google Books hit I found was a passing reference, and all it says is that perastatic acid is "analogous to periodic acid". APerson (talk!) 21:55, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Because of WP:V? -- 101.119.15.64 (talk) 10:41, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
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 Speedied as copyvio by Jimfbleak. Peridon (talk) 14:13, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

The Root of All Evil (A Stas Nowak Novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a novel with no independent references. No indication of notability given, and the book has only been available for two months. I can't find a website for the publisher, and no other books appear in connection with them in a Google search. Possibly self-published, and the only Google hits I find appear to be marketing oriented. Peridon (talk) 15:59, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
I missed that... Now tagged as copyvio. Peridon (talk) 12:30, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
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. If you have an issue with the closing of this discussion, please take it to Deletion review. I am happy to userfy an article, just ask. Thanks for assuming good faith. SarahStierch (talk) 03:41, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

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

"Zebra Lines" are described by only one article, cited only 28 times at Google Scholar; the term does not appear to have gained general use or recognition. MelanieN (talk) 03:06, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

  • possibly convert to disambig, link to relevant main articles I'm seeing two different subjects in GScholar: the original, and something having to do with spectroscopy. It looks in both cases that it likely makes more sense to have a short section in each main rather than a set of rather stubby Z line articles. Mangoe (talk) 04:28, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion. However, I find many different meanings for "Zebra lines" at Google Scholar. The only standard usage seems to be in describing the spectrograph of solar flares, but it is not mentioned in our current article on solar flares. The other uses, including this one, seem to be merely descriptive terms used in passing by one author. The meaning put forth in the current article, describing radiographic findings in children on pamidronate therapy, was defined by only a single, rarely-cited paper. Another single-use citation refers to a microscopic appearance in myoepithelioma of the salivary glands. Still another is used in mathematics to solve 3D problems. Outside of scholarly uses, it is used to describe a type of paint marking on roadways. IMO none of these usages are significant enough to be recognized by Knowledge (XXG), and no redirect or dab is needed for the term. --MelanieN (talk) 15:38, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
NB: I have created a DAB page at Zebra stripe and redirected the plural—and a bunch of other things that had redirected to Zebra striping—there. Cnilep (talk) 02:27, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
  • This topic seems insufficiently notable. According to Web of Science the original paper has been cited seven times (though MelanieN's Google Scholar search suggests that may be low; some relevant journals may not be in Web of Science). WoS finds 33 mentions of zebra lines, but most of these are false positives, for example talking about zebra stripes. I'd say delete this article, but I have no objection to using the name for a DAB page or redirect. Cnilep (talk) 01:03, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton |  02:44, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buffbills7701 13:55, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete - This article doesn't seem to be important since no other article mentions "Zebra Lines". From my viewpoint, I couldn't understand what the article is actually about, so a rewrite will be necessary if the page doesn't get deleted. --MrRatermat2 (talk) 14:01, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep I can understand what it's about (after reading Harris lines) and think that if it is kept a bit of clarification wouldn't go amiss. I'm happy with the two mentions I've seen (discarding the originator of the term and radiopedia) as they seem to show it as a term understood in the profession. It's different enough from 'zebra stripes' not to warrant DAB - who talks about 'lines' on a zebra (or on a zebra crossing even...). A mention could be added to Harris lines, or this could be merged there and a redir left. They are related phenomena. The whole subject is rather specialised and not likely to attract vast piles of references. It's not often I disagree with Melanie, but for once I do... Peridon (talk) 17:22, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Insert in another article that this one links to, such as this one. It'd make much more sense there, as it seems notable as a sub-set but not as a standalone. GRUcrule (talk) 15:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete - No significance or notability. This one-line article can probably go in another article (the Harris lines one). --CyberXRef 16:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete - No significance or notability. We don't need an article for every occurrence of a pattern resembling zebra stripes! If his is any significant phenomena, it should be added to the parent article (Metaphysis). -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 17:28, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
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) 22:51, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

2003 in Afghanistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is a huge mass of uncited trivia. It has been merged from 12 articles by month. About a year ago, someone started to split the article back into 12 month articles, and stopped after doing 2. No one has tried to finish or revert. It seems that the article is not wanted and there is no point in going to the effort in sorting the article out when it would appear that the article is not really wanted. Op47 (talk) 13:54, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment - WP:NEGLECT: Just because no one has worked on the article in awhile does not mean it is not notable or unwanted; it simply means it has been neglected, and no one has bothered to try to improve it. TCMemoire (talk) 17:35, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete - Since when did wikipedia become a diary? Page is too long and events listed aren't significant enough to keep. --MrRatermat2 (talk) 14:04, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep. As it stands at the moment, I would agree with the deletion, but this article can be improved. It should be rewritten to only include the most notable events (those that are well-known and/or had a lasting national or international impact). 2003 was a very important year in Afghanistan due to the war on terror, the Iraq War, and other unrest in the country, so deleting this article altogether would not be the best option. This article should only serve as an outline, not as a collection of every event that happened that year. Similar articles detailing national events by year, such as 2003 in Iraq, 2010 in Norway, and 2009 in the United States, could serve as guidelines for improving this article. Perhaps the less-notable events could be finished being split into new articles by month, as was mentioned by Op47. TCMemoire (talk) 17:35, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep AfD is not for cleanup. Lugnuts 18:02, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak keep This is called a chronicle which is a valid type of history keeping. The problem is lack of sources, which will become increasingly difficult to find as time goes by and sources drop offline (10 years is already very long). What will happen is eventually someone will begin deleting line by line for lack of sources, which is permissible under WP:V. It will then become a useless stub and then AfD a final salute. However since this is the first AfD I can't in good conscious recommend a delete. Assuming it closes Keep, one suggestion is try deleting a whole month as unsourced and see if anyone shows up to complain, and then push them to add sources using inline fact tags and contesting "I don't believe this event actually happened". That's the conventional weapons approach, better than the AfD nuclear weapon as an opening salvo. -- GreenC 08:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep - There is a longstanding consensus at AfD to keep year-long (annual) chronicles, as long as they have at least two or three significant historical events listed therein. In a few cases, we have deleted future years' articles, because they were filled with speculation, only to re-create the article; see e.g., 2014 in Ireland. In other cases, for less momentous years, we have redirected or merged them into a single century; see e.g.,Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/226 in Ireland. We have often deleted articles, such as Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/2013 NATO helicopter crash in Afghanistan, when a redirect or merge would have been cheap. There is 2012 in Afghanistan and a whole slew of related articles by year. If we were to delete this one, and yet keep the others, it would make no sense -- I can't think of a less momentous year for Afghanistan than 2003! To delete this would require a clear and convincing evidence or argument to change long-established consensus. Bearian (talk) 21:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:02, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Article merely for self-promotion. The lead contained even spam. Wickey-nl (talk) 13:17, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
That would plead for an article about Bedein's propaganda activities, respectively his film, rather than a biographic one --> http://www.unrwa.org/newsroom/official-statements/arutz-sheva-forced-publish-denial-over-%E2%80%9Cgroundless%E2%80%9D-%E2%80%9Cpolitically. This would, however, make it a propaganda platform. Actually, Google mainly points to links with links to Bedein's work or interviews with him. Google Books is even a less valid criterion. --Wickey-nl (talk) 10:12, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Not "pleading" sorry, but see CREATIVE #3, review coverage of a person's work counts towards notability of that person. Calling it "propaganda" without a reliable source is a personal bias. Google Books references are a very reliable criteria. -- GreenC 16:42, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Precisely Arutz Sheva is an extreme propaganda platform. I presume a neutral approach here, but isn't a Google search a very strange approach? Shouldn't you judge based on the content of the article itself??? I would advice you to take a look at the Talk page and at the links to the article as well. --Wickey-nl (talk) 17:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Not sure what your goal here is Wickey-nl. The subject plainly satisfies the criteria for notability and inclusion on the basis of WP:CREATIVE guidelines alone. You may dislike/dispute the subject's writing and/or the outlets that publish those writings or screen films. However, that is an issue you can take up in an appropriate venue outside of Wiki. Don't get caught in WP:OVERZEALOUS attempts to delete a qualifying entry. --Vitamin77 (talk) 22:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
I maintain that the article is merely used for self-promotion. The reactions here only confirm that it will be kept for political reasons. Don't reverse the facts, I have no problem with a good article. --Wickey-nl (talk) 11:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
The subject's satisfaction of inclusion criteria has already been established. I encourage editors to continue improving this entry with more material. Vitamin77 (talk) 19:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Also, even if one were to establish "the article is merely used for self-promotion" (ie. COI) that doesn't negate notability. (And COI has not been established.) In terms of PROMOTION, that is a content-level argument, AfD is a topic level discussion i.e. should we have an article on this topic, regardless of the article's content. -- GreenC 20:15, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep - David IS a notable and well known journalist, covering the Middle-East and primarily the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Yasser Arafat, who WOULD know a thing or two on this topic, was on first-name terms with him, and used to refer to Bedein as a "thorn in his side", due to his unfavorable coverage. I will try and source this quote, and otherwise fill out the entry. — Shmuel A. Kam (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep - This is a pretty obvious "keep". Bedein is known as a serious presence in the Middle East/Israeli journalism scene. His investigations have caused problems for alot of Israeli and Arab politicians. --Vitamin77 (talk) 20:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep - Whether one likes him or not, considers him a propagandist or something else, all this is quite irrelevant for the discussion at hand, imho. Especially when it is UNWRA that makes the stink. People living in glass houses should not cast stones, and UNWRA's glass house is quite opaque (on purpose). This is one of the vilest orgs in the Middle East, which would rather give out fish to the needy than teaching them how to fish for themselves. It's a self-perpetuating evil leech, sucking up resources, enslaving people to their handouts, and sowing the seeds of destruction and distrust between Arabs and Jews in the Middle East, as well as between Arabs and the West, which is feeding this UNWRA monster. Enough already! You want to help the "refugee problem"? Merge UNWRA into UNHCR for starters. Anyone who puts UNWRA on the defensive is doing the taxpayers a good service as far as transparency and accountability go. -- Seva.Brodsky 17:40, 17 December 2013 (EST)
Another use of an improper link for improper arguing. --Wickey-nl (talk) 11:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
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 Arapahoe High School (Centennial, Colorado). Mkdw 01:43, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

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

An individual who commits suicide is not notable for the one event. Also issues with using a murderer infobox when as far as I know he is not. MilborneOne (talk) 12:51, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Redirects are cheap. The title is a very likely search term for people looking for him in connection to the shooting. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 19:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
For the same reason we don't need a redirect for his victim or the teacher. He is not relevant or notable and for the sake of his family he need not be immortalized. More harm than good comes from naming him. "student" and "shooter" cover the entire episode. The names are irrelevant. --DHeyward (talk) 15:44, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:51, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

HafenGames Studios (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find video game sources: "HafenGames Studios" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)
  • Delete - The article is highly unnotable, and is about an individual's games (of which most are vaporware, unsourced), like a compilation. The page has already had a speedy deletion request, of which was removed by the creator without any change to resolve the situation. MrRatermat2 (talk) 12:18, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Note: AfD nomination implies deletion—no need for a separate bullet. czar ♔ 18:17, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  • If they were notable, yes. If they weren't notable, no. This doesn't affect this article and how its topic passes or doesn't pass our well outlined inclusion criteria. When you address a topic's notability, you have to address it within Knowledge (XXG)'s interpretation, rather than outside opinion. What I'm asking is how specifically does it fail our standards? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:22, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
  • One of Knowledge (XXG)'s qualities is that it can maintain only subjects that are notably important. The downside is that anyone can edit it, leading to articles about individuals, businesses, products, ect of no significance. --MrRatermat2 (talk) 16:28, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) MrRatermat2 (talk) 12:40, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete as not passing WP:GNG with multiple reliable independent in-depth sources, such as as WP:VG/RS. All the sources appear primary. The games they produced are also not notable and even if they were, notability is not inherited. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:21, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:02, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Even though this club has participated in the defunct Filipino Premier League, it fails WP:GNG and per WP:NOTTEMPORARY also I haven't seen this club being active in any football game since the league's dissolution. FairyTailRocks (talk) 11:13, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:52, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

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

A non notable organisation per WP:ORG. Though the article calls the subject an organisation but I don't think it is more than a website, so if it is so it also fails WP:WEBCRIT. The article was proded earlier for same reason but the author didn't agree to it. SMS 11:15, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. SMS 11:18, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SMS 11:22, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. SMS 11:22, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. SMS 11:22, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:52, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Fails WP:BIO. I can only find brief mentions of this person and no significant coverage in reliable sources. SmartSE (talk) 10:41, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:53, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

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

I just get a weird vibe from this article... Anyone else? There are parts of it that read like an advertisement to me. Not to mention the abhorrent grammar and structure. Skarz (talk) 07:14, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
I have pruned it further leaving only two lines in the article as the version you restored also contained copyright violations. And since speedy deletion is declined so to comment on the notability of the topic it seems to be somewhat notable to me. I will be working on it to see if it can be improved. -- SMS 20:34, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:54, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Non-notable hockey player who played only a couple dozen games out of the low minors and semi-pro loops. Unsourced BLP; only source a casual mention failing WP:ROUTINE. Fails WP:NHOCKEY. Prod removed on an inaccurate assertion that the player does indeed meet NHOCKEY's criterion of playing 100+ games in "fully professional" leagues. Ravenswing 06:54, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep - This player meets criteria #3, #4 and #6 of WP:NHOCKEY. The CHL, ECHL, EPHL, and SPHL are all fully professional hockey leagues, easily on par are superior to Finland's second tier Mestis or the Swedish second tier HockeyAllsvenskan. Excluding games played in the semi-pro MAHL and FHL, this player has played in 140 fully-professional games (150 including playoffs) during his 5 year career. Additionally, he meets criteria #4 by being named the MVP of the 2009 EPHL playoffs, and #6 by being a member of Team USA at the 2003 Winter Universiade. Dolovis (talk) 14:44, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Reply: As with the other similar AfD currently up, you're once again defying what you know to be the consensus on NHOCKEY. Criterion #3 specifically excludes lower leagues such as the CHL, the EPHL and the SPHL, which are by no means comparable with the Mestis. It does include the ECHL, and requires that a player has played 100+ games at that level or above; Ferazzoli played 58. Criterion #4 requires that a player have achieved "preeminent honours (all-time top ten career scorer, First Team All-Star, All-American)" at the CHL/UHL/major junior level; since he played only nine games at that level, he doesn't qualify, and even if the semi-pro EPHL qualified for #4 -- which it doesn't -- being a playoff MVP is not part of the list, and consensus has held that it doesn't. Criterion #6 requires that a player have "layed on a senior national team (such as at the Olympic Games or World Championship);" Ferrazoli didn't. As it happens, here's the roster of the 2003 national team, and given that at the time Ferrazoli was playing for a non-varsity club team in college, the premise that he was skilled enough to play on the national team is farcical. The Winter Universiade is in fact a collegiate exhibition. Ravenswing 02:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.

The subject meets WP:GNG in no far stretch of the policy. As with any religious articles, they invite controversy and criticisms of their own. Sources will inevitably be accepted at different levels of POV but it is undeniable that this subject has been covered by numerous independent publications and will continue to be. Regardless the existing tensions between editors or action at other articles are not strong grounds for any outcome. Clarity and specificity to the merge and delete rationales in terms of the sources, applicable policies, and quantity required verge on WP:HEY and WP:ATA. In terms of the balance or article requiring more sources to substantiate its statements those are surmountable and editiorial issues. Please note this AfD is to in no way affect the results of the CP investigation whether that results in a fix or delete outcome. Mkdw 02:55, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

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

The topic Criticism of Jainism does not have any significant coverage in reliable sources. This makes it near impossible to avoid original research when extracting the content. It is hence appropriate to delete this article. Rahul (talk) 06:17, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Don't think we ever cherry pick or wrongly present the reliable source. The only problem is that you have some passion of POV pushing agenda of all Jainism articles, all of these leads everyone to think that you just oppose whatever is presented other than your wish. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:37, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Besides criticism of Jainism by Adi Shankara and Dayananda, Guru Nanak, founder of Sikhism, also criticized Jainism . Other links:,--Redtigerxyz 16:46, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep - This has been nominated by User Rahul Jain due to his personal vendetta. He is a Single Purpose Account, who wants to criticize all other religions especially Hinduism but cannot accept criticism of Jainism. As said by above by Redtigerxyz all references are RS. Criticism of other religions also have articles too. Jethwarp (talk) 07:13, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
If something needs to be taken to AfD it is Jainism and Hinduism article, which was created by him after being repeatedly declined at Articles of Creation for lack of multiple sources and original research and fringe theory. Jethwarp (talk) 07:13, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep - It's obvious that much of the criticism of Jainism came from the 18th - 19th century Christian missionaries, same with the Criticism of Hinduism, commonly these missionaries were racist, ignorant, and filled with hatred. Such unimportant and useless quotes had flooded the Criticism of Jainism, as well as Criticism of Hinduism, on here. But we have removed them, we stick to those criticism who have some credibility.
Considering that this page is 1.5 times bigger than Criticism of Hinduism, even bigger than Criticism of Sikhism, but not as bigger as Criticism of Buddhism(gonna check in future), so it must be kept. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:34, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not enough reliable sources. The existence of other Criticism articles on religion isn't a persuasive argument. They all are intrinsically POV-forks and are magnets for vandalism. I'm an uninvolved user coming here after having commented at RSN. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:40, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete It doesn't seem to contain enough RS material for its own article. At most, I would suggest salvaging content from here that is not on the main Jainism page, if any. Vanamonde93 (talk) 08:33, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Only for technicality seeing the sizes of both pages, i wouldn't support merging. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:15, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Merging is certainly not a good idea, since the article is already large enough(exceeding 5,000 bytes) for it's own page, in fact it has above 12,000 bytes, even higher than criticism pages of some other religions! Bladesmulti (talk) 12:39, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
No, merging would work fine, because the material here would belong better in the article about Jainism, and then as that article develops, daughter articles can be spun off in a non-POV-fork manner, for example to cover the two sects' divergent understanding of women's role. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:56, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Your views are not really balanced, once you requested for the deletion, and you haven't even slashed your previous thought in this page. Once again, you think merging would really work? Since the article is much bigger than some other similar articles. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:23, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
@ User:Itsmejudith and User:Vanamonde93 - your arguments for delete just becoz Not enough reliable sources is not a valid argument for delete vote. It means in other sense that article is supported by reliable sources at present and you may wish to add further sources to it!! Jethwarp (talk) 17:49, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Right on Jethwarp, Exactly.. Just add a tag, and keep working.. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:55, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Also I would like to thank Redtigerxyz for notifying that even there are further information available of Criticism of Jainism by Adi Shankara and Guru Nanak, which needs to be incorporated into article. So, your arguments for delete makes no sense as per wiki policy on deletion. So, with additional material available about views of Guru Nanak and Adi Shankara merge with Jainism is also not a good idea. Jethwarp (talk) 18:09, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Adi Shankara, but Guru nanak? Guru nanak's sole aim was to get followers towards his religion or philosophy.. Shankara and Dayanand are like, they are highly admired for presenting the important aspects of life, by reliable sources. So I don't agree with Guru nanak really. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:17, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Guru Nanak's motives are immaterial. If his criticism has been included in secondary sources, his opinion goes in the article. If the criticism is also criticized as you say due to his motives, that too can go in. The weightage can be decided later on. But there's no reason to exclude it. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 19:16, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep. "Otherstuff" aside, this page raises questions that really do come up with all "Criticism of (a religion)" articles: whether the discussants are motivated by WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and whether such pages are, intrinsically, problematic as POV-forks or vandal-magnets, etc. – and nominations such as this one are perennials at AfD. We can easily go around in these circles, but in the end, the subject matter satisfies WP:GNG. The page currently cites approximately a dozen sources (depending on how one counts them) that satisfy WP:RS, demonstrating enduring interest among reliable secondary sources. Looking at what else might be available as sourcing, the amount of scholarly sources are, indeed, somewhat lesser than for many other criticisms of religions: , but such coverage does exist. And with 200+ hits in books: , this is clearly something that does not fail GNG. If there are problems with cherry-picking of material from the sources, that can be fixed through the editing process, and is not an inevitable and intrinsic characteristic of the page, and therefore is not a valid reason to delete. Likewise for being a vandal-magnet, where there is always the possibility of page protection. The question of merging into the parent page is a subjective one, but given the existence of sufficient sourcing to pass GNG as a standalone page, I do not see any compelling reason to merge (and IDONTLIKEIT certainly is not a compelling reason). There have been many previous discussions about "Criticism of" articles, not just of religions, and the previous consensus has always been against eliminating such pages as a general rule, so that is not a good reason for merging in this case. I've read all of this discussion so far, and I do not see a valid argument (separate from personal dislike) that GNG has not been satisfied. It does not fail GNG, and it does not fail WP:NOT, so on policy grounds it's a keep. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:20, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to put together a policy-related argument. I really do not think that this article is properly sourced, or even that it will be possible to find sources. Sure, there are some scholarly sources cited, but they are cobbled together to create an essay. Is there one single source that actually contains criticism of Jainism? Itsmejudith (talk) 18:33, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
As the title of the source, apparently not, but yes, if you look at my book search link, you will find many that use the phrase verbatim. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:35, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
That is far fewer than 200 hits in books. If you look down the list, most are repetitions of statements made in other items. I'm sure you know that this isn't how we do research for WP and you are just using it as a rule of thumb. It would be useful to take this back to RSN for more opinions. I'm also going to WikiProject Religion for views in general of the Criticism of… series of articles (not Criticism of religion, because that is a different case). Could you point me towards where you say there is a consensus to keep "Criticism of" articles in general? The vast majority of such articles have been merged and I rarely see cases where that is inappropriate. It is a pretty pure form of POVFORK, after all. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:45, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm replying to you here, especially since most of the other editors are just repeating themselves. But I'll say to them as well as to you that I do indeed understand that WP:GHITS is nothing more than a rule of thumb. No, I don't envision a page with 200 inline citations! I'm just saying that there are enough sources to pass WP:GNG. Anyway, I think it's relevant to point out that the last paragraph of WP:POVFORK actually addresses pages with "Criticism of" titles, and says: "There is currently no consensus whether a "Criticism of..." article is always a POV fork, but many criticism articles nevertheless suffer from POV problems." I think that's as close to an "official" statement of current policy consensus as we are going to find. You asked me about previous discussions. It comes up perennially at the Village Pump. The discussion I remembered was Knowledge (XXG):Village pump (policy)/Archive 76#The problem is the very existence of Criticism of X. Other similar discussions include Knowledge (XXG):Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive R#Views please: "Criticism of X" articles. and Knowledge (XXG):Village pump (policy)/Archive 44#NPOV and criticism pages. Although it's "otherstuff", I've also seen a lot of AfDs for other criticism of religion pages, and I've yet to see one that ended in delete. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:16, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
PS: It just occurred to me that you said, of the previous discussions, "where say there is a consensus to keep "Criticism of" articles in general". Strictly speaking, it isn't really a clear consensus to keep, so much as no consensus to delete. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:21, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Not true. Sometimes criticism is often undeniable and impossible to refute. Already told you before. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:50, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
So I can see that you completely misunderstand WP:NPOV. It is of no significance at all whether criticism can be refuted or not. It is not up to us on Knowledge (XXG) to decide such matters. What matters is whether there is notable criticism. I have yet to be shown one source that deals at any length with Criticism of Jainism. But let's say for a minute that there is some notable criticism, then it should be covered in Jainism. When we create daughter articles we must avoid doing so on point of view lines. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:36, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Few lines, actually how many? 1? 2? 3? 4? Criticism in this page is far bigger than that. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:22, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
It gives just 9 results to me in Google Scholars. The google books give 200+ results, that is true, however, most of them does not deal with the criticism of Jainism at all. The books that have some mention of criticism of Jainism are confined to first three pages. Most of them deals either with Shankaracharya or Dayananda's criticism. One book, (A History of Indian Literature by Shishir Das) gives a passing remark to Sambandar. After page 3 of google books, I find books like "Why I Am Not a Christian" of Betrand Russel and "God is not great" of Christopher Hitchen. --Rahul (talk) 18:51, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Hitchens hasn't criticized Jainism, Hinduism, Sikhism though, he just touched the topics somewhat when he talks about the Osho in critical sense, but that's not really necessary. But we already had some suggestions above, that what we can add to this article. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:54, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Apparently, my point was, out of that 200+ results on google books, more than half does not deal with criticism of Jainism. Others do not have significant coverage, or just mention it in the passing. --Rahul (talk)
The google books result, in reality, gives only 51 results. Out of them only 24 books has the phrase "Criticism of Jainism" and none of them deals with the topic in any detail. This is not sufficient to say that it satisfies Knowledge (XXG)'s notability guidelines. @User:Tryptofish can you clarify what makes the topic meet notability criteria? --Rahul (talk) 04:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
I thought I already did explain that, but it seems to me that each of the points listed at WP:GNG has been met. If we take your estimate of 24 books, that is clearly enough sources right there to satisfy GNG. It sounds like you are trying to argue that, just because not all of the search results are useful sources for our purposes, no sources exist, and that is just not logical. However, I'm open to discussing the possibility that sources have been cited that only touch on the topic, and were cited in such a way as to be misleading to make it sound like something that was not intended by the source to be criticism of Jainism was criticism of Jainism (see WP:Cherrypicking). To do that, I'm going to need you to be specific. If there are sources already cited on the page that have been misrepresented through cherry-picking, then I'm in favor of taking them out. But I'm not going to accept on face value the declaration that "none of them" is a valid source, so you need to back that up with specifics. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
I am not arguing that "just because not all of the search results are useful sources for our purposes, no sources exist". My point is specifically that "none of the 24 sources actually discusses criticism of Jainism in detail". They only touch the topic in passing. Two prominent Hindus who have criticized Jainism are Dayananda and Shankaracharya. Dayananda was was religiously intolerant and the books like "Social Work and Developmental Issues" By Hajira Kumar, "The Arya Samaj Movement in South Africa" by Thillayvel Naidoo, "World Perspectives on Swami Dayananda Saraswati" By Gaṅgā Rām Garg shows the Dayananda's religious intolerance towards other religions using Jainism, Buddhism etc as example. They barely talk about criticism of Jainism, and mostly deal with criticism of Dayananda. Shankaracharya criticized Jainism in his commentary on Brahmasutra. Books like "A Critical Survey of Indian Philosophy" By Chandradhar Sharma have a very small (6-7 lines) account of it. Most of shankaracharya's criticism is already covered in a featured article Anekantavada and a good article Karma in Jainism. One of the books ("A History of Indian Literature, 500-1399: From Courtly to the Popular" By Sisir Kumar Das) mention that Sambandar's songs "also betray his strong criticism of Jainism and Buddhism". Just because the books contain the phrase "Criticism of Jainism" doesn't mean it is necessarily dealing with it. It is not enough for a full article for its own. WP:GNG clearly says about significant coverage, which none of the books have. Can you give a look to those results and see if you can find one or two books which has significant coverage? --Rahul (talk) 07:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Don't care what you thinks. If you don't like to follow wikipedia rules, it's your choice, but it's not allowed. Winston Churchill can be regarded as racist, hater, and whatever, but still his criticism is added to the articles. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
I've already looked at the page, as it was just before the blanking, and there were enough sources there to pass GNG, given the amount of content that could be generated from the sources cited (allowing for the fact that the section sourced to the BBC will have to be reworded). Even if none of the books in the search result really gave significant coverage, which I strongly doubt, the page already passes GNG. The word "significant" is, of course, a subjective one, and thus it can be debated, where editors sincerely disagree as to what is or is not significant. What GNG actually says is: "Significant coverage is more than a passing mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." The footnote at the end of that sentence makes clear what "passing mention" means, and it's really pretty much the same thing as WP:Cherrypicking. Again: "it need not be the main topic". I fear that any example I give, you will respond by saying that it's not significant enough, especially because you have argued here that you would discount criticisms made by authors whom you consider to be hostile. Just using what you, yourself, just said, I would argue that Dayananda and Shankaracharya are two notable sources of criticism, notable enough that we have pages about each of them. The fact that they criticized Buddhism or other religions as well does not mean that they did not also criticize Jainism, and it makes no difference whether Knowledge (XXG) editors agree or disagree with them. Sambandar is also a critic, from what you say, and we appear, from what you say, to have reliable sourcing to indicate that he criticized Jainism (and other religions too), and his songs are significant enough to have received commentary in the secondary source you just cited. None of this is what GNG calls "passing mention". --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jethwarp (talk) 04:08, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
To note that you created the article and also that you plagiarised the BBC when you did so. We now have to check that there is no copyvio in the article as it is. Similar articles for other religions isn't a reason to keep. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:34, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Although I agree that the otherstuff argument is not valid, and I strongly agree that any copyviolation must be remedied, when I look at the page pre-blanking, the only section that seems to be based on the BBC source is the section called "Criticism of religious practices". I just looked through the article editing history, and there are multiple editors who added content, so we will have to wait on the investigation before concluding whether the rest of the page is problematic or not. Also, even the contested material from the BBC appears to have been reliably sourced and could be rewritten to eliminate any plagiarism. I'm pointing all of this out because there can be a natural tendency for editors to look at a blanked page and conclude, wrongly in this instance, that of course it should be deleted. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
I wasn't using this as a reason for deletion. Sorry, I didn't check how much of the present article is affected. I hope the investigation will find that out. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:35, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
No problem, I understand that. I'm just trying to head off any unintended consequences. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
If you did not check how much of present article is affected then why did you blank whole page for copyright violation - just because you don't like it. Did you ever got thru Talk:Criticism of Jainism - the article was created after lot of debate and creating consensus on what should be included and what not. If you think BBC article is a copyright violation - then it is not - just got to the given link and you will find other sources also mention same thing what BBC article says - Sexual Knowledge, Sexual Science: The History of Attitudes to Sexuality edited by Roy Porter, Mikuláš Teich page 71. I can also cite multiple sources many are available in Hindi and other Indian languages. There is no copyright violation as such which cannot be rectified. You are trying to scuttle the AfD debate by using copyright violation. Also please go to link - there are multiple books saying that sect of Janis believe that women cannot attain moksha. If you do not have in-depth knowledge of the subject - please get some. User Rahul Jain did not like criticism he went to WP:RSN, where-in you commented the article should go - he took a lead from there and nominated it see Knowledge (XXG):RSN#Sources_for_Criticism_of_Jainism Jethwarp (talk) 03:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
The copyright violation needed attention. You will see from my exchange with Tryptofish that I'm not trying to scuttle the AfD. I have been quite clear that I don't find the existence of any of the Criticism of (religion) articles useful. That is for policy-related reasons; they are in their essence conceptually incoherent ragbags. I don't have a favourable attitude to Criticism of… articles in general. By the way, BBC overviews like this are not fully reliable for religion-related articles, which ought to be based on scholarly sources. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:13, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
My other argument is that there are insufficient reliable sources for a stand-alone article, and that any reliably-sourced material can go in the article on Jainism. I have looked at the chapter in Porter & Teich that you cite, by Julia Leslie. That is an excellent source. If used on Jainism is imperative to include the final point on the debate on women's bodies in Jainism, that the context of the debate was an argument between the two Jain sects. It is of course, critical of Jainism, in that it is entirely independent of that religion and does not shy from making points that could be construed as negative. What it also is not is an intervention into rivalry between different religions in India, and any attempt to use it in that way should be deprecated. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:27, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Your arguments are not in concurrence to Wiki policies and guidelines. Firstly, there are enough reliable source as myself and others have already linked in this debate. Secondly, whenever any section grows beyond certain limits, there is a rule to make an article and this article and other Criticism of relgions articles have come into exsistance due to that reason. It is not a one or two line article which can be added back to Jainism article. Thirdly, what you or I think of this or that article is our personal opinion, which you are trying to emphasis again and again. But your or my opinion matters only if you give solid wiki policy reasons, why this article should be deleted or not deleted or be merged or so on.... You have not explained till now, as per which Wiki policy this article is a delete or anything else. Jethwarp (talk) 10:27, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
WP:POVFORK. And insufficient reliable references. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Let me say to everyone here and to no one in particular that there are diminishing returns to repeating the same arguments over again. As for the page blanking, I suggest that editors use the edit history of the page to look at the version just before the blanking, and consider that there is only one section sourced to the BBC that may need to be rewritten, and consider all the other sections as well. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
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. Michig (talk) 07:36, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

F.C. Británico de Madrid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable amateur football team. Prod contested without reason. StAnselm (talk) 05:46, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:57, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:55, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

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

A well-respected scientist, but one who, unfortunately, is primarily known for her deeply flawed research linking vaccines to autism, none of which has received any coverage outside of the anti-vaccine fringe and skeptical blogs, neither of which are reliable sources. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 04:39, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 04:39, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 04:40, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 04:40, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep. A GS h-index of 20 is enough to pass WP:Prof#1 in bio-med. The claim that the subject has (not) received any coverage outside of the anti-vaccine fringe and skeptical blogs, neither of which are reliable sources is nonsense. If the subject is fringey this makes her more notable not less. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:51, 14 December 2013 (UTC).
  • Keep Xxanthippe's rationale here is sound. What is slightly concerning is that there is no hint in the article of the reasons for her notability, just some heavily guarded references to how she became embroiled in the controversy. As I understand it this is not simply a case in which her research was taken up (and possibly misused) by others, but she took an active part. It would be good if a detached but knowledgeable editor could take a look - there should be no hatchet job here, but some indication as to why people might have seen reference to her. That is purely an editing matter though. --AJHingston (talk) 10:30, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete - The article desperately needs improvement. I tried reading it but it mostly was very hard to understand. Either a rewrite or a delete will suffice. --MrRatermat2 (talk) 13:46, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep per Xxanthippe. Any article issues identified by the nom or MrRatermat2 can be addressed by cleaning up the article and adding references. --Randykitty (talk) 19:01, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep per Xxanthippe. She's a notable scientist. She did once write a paper for Neurotoxicology with Andrew Wakefield and others ("Delayed acquisition of neonatal reflexes in newborn primates receiving a thimerosal-containing Hepatitis B vaccine: Influence of gestational age and birth weight") that was later withdrawn. However, looking at her citations, she is primarily known for work completely unrelated to vaccines. I have no idea which way news coverage goes (as of today Google News is no longer part of the {{Find sources}} template). -- 101.119.15.2 (talk) 06:21, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. And I'm not sure the somewhat confusing nom provides a valid deletion criterion. -- 101.119.15.2 (talk) 06:52, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Yeah, my nomination was somewhat unclear. Rather than "well-respected scientist" I should have said "has published papers in well-respected journals". However, as per WP:PROF criterion 1, Hewitson's research hasn't, as far as I can tell, been discussed in independent reliable sources. Incidentally, the sourcing in the article is very limited, consisting as it does of links to blogs, her page at the Johnson Center for Child Health and Development, and her page at the Pittsburgh Development Center. If you feel she is notable, then additional sourcing is in order. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 13:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
For heaven's sake look at the reason for my vote and read WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:25, 15 December 2013 (UTC).
Vaccination has always been controversial, and I have no doubt that Dr Hewitson's name will continue to be quoted in that context for years to come, and for that reason people will want to look her up. That, in itself, justifies giving her an entry. In its way, the information that she is a humble toiler in the field is as helpful as being told that she was awarded a major prize. It is also, in my view, why such articles need to be seen to be scrupulously objective and accurate; if it appears to be taking a position on her work, giving undue weight to some aspect of it, or taking sides in the controversy it will be mistrusted and worse than useless. The trouble with the notability criteria is that because people naively regard an entry in Knowledge (XXG) as an honour, might like to create one as a present for a colleague or a loved one (or a detested teacher) or become jealous of a colleague who has one when they do not, there becomes something of an obsession here with objective criteria and demonstrable fairness. But that can miss the point that the measures are often only proxy ones and it has nothing to do with merit, just with how likely users are to expect to find them here for good or ill. --AJHingston (talk) 15:16, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
In light of Xxanthippe's argument, I withdraw my nomination. She does meet WP:PROF and her article should therefore be kept. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 01:13, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you Jinkinson. I wish that more nominators would do as you do in the same circumstances. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC).
Comment I realize she meets WP:PROF, however I would still like to see some more independent sources than a few blogs, a newspaper article which mentions her in one sentence, and her faculty page. If she is notable, this shouldn't be too hard to find. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 02:34, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
For heaven's sake look at the reason for my vote and read WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC).
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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:06, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Promotional article fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Logical Cowboy (talk) 04:22, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 05:09, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 05:10, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
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 Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Dubuque. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:56, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Saints Peter and Paul Catholic Church (Sherrill, Iowa) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This church in a small town does not appear to satisfy WP:ORG. Knowledge (XXG) is not a directory of every church. Edison (talk) 04:20, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
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. As CSD G3; only source is an animator's use of movie footage and calling it a "video game trailer", no evidence of existence by any of the allegedly involved companies. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:18, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Dick Figures: The Video Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find video game sources: "Dick Figures: The Video Game" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Declined PROD, and not quite sure if CSD G3 would apply, but this game appears to be a hoax, with no reliable sources to be found, and not even any statements from Mondo Media or those connected to the show. The lone reference, a video, does not provide any useful information either. ZappaOMati 03:49, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

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.  Sandstein  09:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Just not finding enough to justify having this article (i.e. fails GNG). It current is a list of place she taught and a few publications he contributed to. In Googling, I did find that he has a book credit, An American Professor in Prague but that's about the extent of what I found with my (admittedly cursory) search. — Rhododendrites |  02:54, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Keep full professor at multiple institutions, satisfies WP:PROF. In addition, author, scholar, contributor to academic articles. Satisfies need to keep on multiple different criteria. — Cirt (talk) 17:05, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Being a full professor explicitly does not satisfy WP:ACADEMIC. Nor does publishing articles and books in itself make someone notable. Having said so, I realize that it might be difficult to find online sources on somebody who worked almost a century ago. Google is bound to be useless here. So I find myself in disagreement with both the nom and Cirt... Guess that comes down to a neutral then... :-) One note to the nom, though: if you performed an "(admittedly cursory) search", you should (re-)read WP:BEFORE... --Randykitty (talk) 19:23, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
    • @Cirt: - I may be ignorant on this, but in what way does serving as full professor at multiple institutions satisfy WP:PROF? Author/scholar/contributor isn't itself reason to keep, either, as almost all academics satisfy that. As he seems to fail the GNG I'm not sure what else to look for. @Randykitty: - cursory as in I didn't pour through many pages of Google Hits. I'm familiar with BEFORE -- did you find something you feel I should have? --— Rhododendrites |  20:42, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
      • Frankly, didn't even try to find something. It's just that a cursory search is not very much what BEFORE requires of a nom... --Randykitty (talk) 21:02, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
        • Fair enough. Poor choice of words. I guess I'm just thinking in comparison to some of the other extremely thorough digging I've done for other AfDs. Due diligence was done here, but there's more searching that could be done is all I'm saying. --— Rhododendrites |  21:11, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Multiple publications are not enough. Multiple citations are needed and they aren't there. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC).
Those sources are not by him, they are about him. Read them again more closely. James500 (talk) 13:09, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete Publishing is what academics (and authors) do and in and of itself that doesn't make them notable. What we need is evidence that these writings have made an impact. I searched the Web of Science for citations to his work. My access goes back to 1900 and WoS includes many paper-only sources, although its coverage in history/law and before 1950 is only sketchy. I found just 1 (one) citation to AI Andrews. Given when he worked and the fields I worked in, I'd be willing to accept notability at far lower levels than we usually do, but this really is much less than can be expected from somebody who is notable, even for these fields and in that time period. --Randykitty (talk) 11:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems to satisfy GNG. He has received significantcoverage in two biographical dictionaries which discuss his life story. That is all that is required. But in addition to that they also respectively describe him as "prominent" and "eminent". James500 (talk) 13:09, 15 December 2013 (UTC) Vote striken because this seems to be a lost cause (though I don't think this article should be deleted) James500 (talk) 03:56, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Where in the block of text below does it discuss his life story? Or do you have better access to this book than I do through the link above:

      ANDREWS, Arthur Irving. Cambridge, Mass.; b. Providence, R. I., March 27, 1878; s. Frederick William and Eliabeth Heard Howard. A.; A.B., Brown Univ., 1901; Student Univ. of Wis., 1901-02; Ph.D., Harvard Univ., 1905 (see Vol. II).

      --— Rhododendrites |  15:21, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
      • In all fairness that is a biography and the words "see Vol. II" imply that there is more. James500 (talk) 16:03, 15 December 2013 (UTC) I should also point out that if there is any reason to suspect that snippet view is witholding relevant text, the onus is on those arguing for deletion to check a physical copy of the book. James500 (talk) 16:10, 15 December 2013 (UTC) Volume 2 is here . It clearly contains more information than the passage you set out above. James500 (talk) 00:11, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
        • I see no mention of him on the second link, and the first is a list of positions he's held. Once again, this is not significant coverage by any definition. --— Rhododendrites |  03:46, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
          • The second link is the text that immediately follows the first. It is possible to manipulate snippet view so as to extract consecutive portions of text. If you don't believe me, go and look at a physical copy of the book. As regards "not significant ... by any definition", I suggest you google "proper meaning fallacy". James500 (talk) 04:46, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Some more sources you might like to consider: . James500 (talk) 17:13, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
these sources are negligible: they just announce minor appointments. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:30, 15 December 2013 (UTC).
How do you define negligible? How do you define minor? Why should anyone else be interested in your subjective opinions about importance? If these appointments are not important, why are mentioned at all? Why are they discussed at any kind of length? James500 (talk) 00:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
There is extensive discussion of such matters on the talk page of WP:Prof and its archives. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:10, 16 December 2013 (UTC).
(1) If it is not on the talk page for GNG, it is unlikely to be relevant. (2) You can't expect other users to plow through those archives to find something that isn't included in the wording of the guidelines. (3) Is that position one to which an average ordinary person (who I assume to be an intellectual mediocrity to lack connections) could ever dream of being appointed to in that day and age? (4) I don't think this article is more objectionable than the stuff we let in under ATHLETE and some of the articles on celebrities and popular culture. James500 (talk) 01:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Editors are expected to be familiar with the policy guidelines of the area in which they edit. If they are not then they are more likely to make poor edits. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:19, 16 December 2013 (UTC).
(1) Talk pages and archives are not policy guidelines. (2) VAGUEWAVE. James500 (talk) 03:16, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
  • They are believable. It's just that, like Xxanthippe said, they are just short notices about positions (not awards or something). Nothing special about that. I agree with your ATHLETE remark, but, hey, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS (and that's why I don't edit in that area). As for the Who's Who sources, this is Marquis Who's Who. Before attaching any weight to that, I'd like to know whether at that time it was any more reliable as an indicator of notability than it is nowadays (that is, hardly...) --Randykitty (talk) 07:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, sorry, those are perfectly believable but not sufficiently in-depth. The complaint about believability was aimed at the only thing currently in the "references" section of the article, a claim that it was derived from an unspecified article in an edition of an encyclopedia that was published before most of the accomplishments listed in our article. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I think that someone should check the 1926 edition of the New International Encyclopedia. I suspect that the author of the WP article meant to refer to that edition and used the wrong template by mistake. I note in particular that that encyclopedia contained a lot of biography and that it was published in the same year as the book by Herringshaw. James500 (talk) 18:59, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
  • As per your request, there is a review of the preceding volume of the book by Robert Cecil Cook on JSTOR here. UnfornatelyI do not have access at the moment, so I can't tell you what it says.
  • Could you explain what the connection between Thomas William Herringshaw, the American Publishers' Association, R C Cook and the Robert C Cook Company (or is it the Robert C Cook Press of the McQuiddy Printing Company) on the one hand, and Marquis on the other, is? And could you tell me what your source is? James500 (talk) 13:03, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
  • OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is aimed at comparison with articles that exist despite failing notability guidelines.I do not think that reasoning can be applied to comparisonswith articles that clearly pass an SNG such as ATHLETE. I think it is a valid argument to point out that notability guidelines appear to have double standards that do not appear to make sense. If I was to apply the logic of ATHLETE, being a professor at Charles University would presumably be enough, because it was at that time considered to be one of the best universities. James500 (talk) 14:52, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Point taken. But that the jocks have a too low bar for inclusion, does not mean that we have to do the same in the rest of WP. Yes, there's a double standard. But it's not because WP:PROF is too strict, it's because ATHLETE is too permissive. It leads to loads of stub articles on obscure sports people that will never develop and probably never even contain the date that they passed away (because that generally is decades after people were interested in their exploits. Anyway, that is all beside the point at hand here, whether this person meet WP:PROF or, failing that, WP:GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 16:41, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
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. Considering that the article has no inline references, cites only one source, which is non-English and therefore difficult to verify, and moreover of disputed reliability, I must give more weight to the reasonable concerns that this content is unverifiable (WP:V). This does not prevent the recreation of a better-sourced new article.  Sandstein  11:48, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

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

For a number of reasons. Historically the war was an invasion of territory rather than an uprising so even the previous attempt at a Redirect to Iga Province#History would not work. The entire article is a fiction couched in historical events. There was no uprising of ninja clans - the single source is not reliable and could be nothing more than an attempt to enforce a romantic view or mixing up of fact with fictional role playing games.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:09, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:16, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 19:59, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:00, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
The value of the source has been discussed ad nauseum here.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:25, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 06:11, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JodyB talk 02:35, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep and move. In need of editing, but the article is certainly not a complete work of fiction as has been suggested. http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ebTKZbxIayQC&lpg=PA42&ots=nFtEiC0mzn&dq=Tensho%20Iga%20War&pg=PA43#v=onepage&q=Tensho%20Iga%20War&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.202.220 (talk) 09:57, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment The historically correct and relevant part of the article is already covered in Iga Province#History. The article duplicates that and then adds a whole incoherent mess which distorts the events. For that reason a redirect is the least option. The outright deletion was because the title reflected a fantasy role and the mass of redirects generated by the original author serves no purpose.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:38, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment How does it distort the events? What is fictional about the contents? You provide no specifics in your allegations, which make them very hard to respond to. I don't speak Russian and therefore can't check the source, but remove or tone down the mentions of ninja and I find no major inaccuracies in the article's content. Instead, the main problem as it stands now is that it is confusing to follow and is (except for a couple paragraphs in the body) concerned with ikki in the late Sengoku period rather than the subject of the article. That should be removed (and could be integrated into the article on the ikko ikki, I guess). But... there doesn't seem to be a real argument for deletion here, as far as I can see. Does the topic of the article (the Oda invasions of Iga province) meet the criteria for notability? Do reliable sources on the topic exist? The answer to both of those questions is yes (even if those reliable sources aren't currently being used). To me, that indicates that the solution is editing, not deletion. The title can be easily changed, and a redirect to the Iga province article seems unreasonable since it has the same problems with sourcing and ninja material as this article and only includes a single sentence on the invasions. --Cckerberos (talk) 13:58, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
If one were to "remove or tone down the mentions of ninja" and it be edited and proper sources used, rather than the dubious Russian source (the reliability of which there is no way to confirm, while there are numerous reasons to put it in question)... how would it then be different from Iga Province#History? The article has a dubious title, a single dubious source, it is written so badly as to confuse more than it informs and, at best, it merely duplicates what is present elsewhere, for no good reason. Aside from the title, any one of those is reason enough, on its own, to delete it. If you think the topic deserves an article... either completely re-write the article, or let it be deleted and then write a new one, once you are able to.
Knowledge (XXG) is not a repository for badly written and badly sourced crap, even if the topic that it covers, is a worthy one.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 16:53, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Any part of the article that is covered by the Russian source, but not other (reliable) sources, and which is not already covered in Iga Province#History, is more or less a work of fiction. Well... whether it is or not, there is no reliable evidence that can be used to show the truth of any of it, so in practice, it is no different from fiction.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 17:04, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
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 redirected to Parliament of the Province of Canada. (non-admin closure) Ansh666 08:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Redundant to Parliament of the Province of Canada. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 02:34, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:56, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

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

I see no significance except some purely routine minor articles in trade journals presumably based on press releases DGG ( talk ) 02:11, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 02:12, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete: Of the offered references, the April 2012 Packprint World article is probably most substantial, but is just quoting someone from this firm among several. Multiple searches are just turning up PR-based mention in trade press; nothing to indicate that the firm meets WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 09:57, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

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

promotional article, no clear notability. List of non notable member of the BOD is characteristic. Customer base listings are deceptive because they don;t indicate how much the product is actually used. Refs seem essentially Press releases. DGG ( talk ) 02:08, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 03:12, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
  • While the page is well written and contains important information, It lacks citation and is clearly not very important. I suggest improvement, otherwise Delete might be the easiest option. I can't really choose between keep and delete. --MrRatermat2 (talk) 13:39, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 17:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

List of quadratic irrational numbers set in a systematic order (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Original research and an unencyclopaedic list. Effectively unsourced: the links are to software (a freeware phone app and Wolfram's online app) that can do calculations. No source for the list, its entries or the terms and symbols used. JohnBlackburnedeeds 02:06, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Per WP:SNOW, could somebody do the honours? Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000 00:18, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

List of film director and composer collaborations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This list seems like useless information for an encyclopedia. Unnecessarily long and very trivial. iMatthew / talk 07:11, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 07:53, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 07:53, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 07:53, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Those two articles are much more presentable, I wasn't even aware they existed. I could be wrong in nominating this one. iMatthew / talk 17:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:43, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
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. LFaraone 07:29, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (Ontario) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As I don't believe this article meets GNG, as all of its media mentions seem to be "trivial" (i.e., the information was secured under the Freedom of ...), I thought I would bring it here for a discussion. This seems to me like somewhat of a gray area, so I appreciate ensuing counterarguments that may favor it being kept, but discussion seemed necessary. Go Phightins! 05:18, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 07:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 07:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete. Clearly against WP:NOTREPOSITORY # 3: "Knowledge (XXG) articles are not merely collections of Public domain or other source material such as ... laws ... that are only useful when presented with their original, unmodified wording." -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:40, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
NOTREPOSITORY is not now relevant. I have expanded the article so that it now consists of more than just an extract, and the article is capable of being expanded further. James500 (talk) 14:03, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:31, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
That would not be compatible with WP:BEFORE. The sources only have to exist. A simple search of GBooks confirms that they do. (Hint: "Ontario" is not always part of the name, other names such as "FIPPA" and "RSO 1990 c F31" are also used, and there are sometimes problems with character recognition). There is no deadline for incorporating information from those sources into the article. The nominator is in fact required to attempt to do that himself before any nomination. James500 (talk) 22:14, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
There is, or should be, a point at which Knowledge (XXG) begins to concern itself not just with the raw volume of article topics, but with the actual quality of the articles themselves. There's no real value in permanently keeping a bad, uninformative and largely unsourced article that nobody's taking any time and initiative to actually work on, just because it remains possible that somebody might get around to improving it eventually — if and when somebody is prepared to finally put some effort into an underperforming article, it is not any more difficult to start a new article from scratch than it is to add improvements to one that already exists, so the fact that somebody could theoretically improve an article isn't a compelling argument if nobody actually is improving the article. Bearcat (talk) 23:07, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
What you suggest is not policy, and I would be strongly opposed to it becoming policy, because it would probably kill the encyclopedia. James500 (talk) 23:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC) And "quantity has its own quality". James500 (talk) 00:13, 10 December 2013 (UTC) And it is more difficult because it involves additional research and typing and can only be done by a registered user. James500 (talk) 00:33, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:32, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete - A7 The article does not indicate why it is important in the slightest. There's an article to be made about the subject, but there's no meaningful article there at all. No assertion of notability. Neonchameleon (talk) 02:13, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Firstly, CSD A7 does not apply to legislation. (The authentic text of a piece of legislation is typically a physical object, namely a document written or printed on a substance such as vellum and held in a secure building. Paper copies are normally issued. And the rights and duties created by a piece of legislation are clearly not any of the things described by CSD A7.) Secondly, saying that X is a piece of legislation (that creates rights and duties) is an assertion of importance in of itself. A court can order a person to obey any piece of legislation by means of an injunction or prerogative order. If he does not do as he is told, he can be committed to prison for contempt of court, possibly for years at a time. And being in danger of being sent to prison is rather significant. And that is before you consider the rights of access to information that the thing actually creates and the limitations it places on them, which are obviously going to be of enormous practical importance. And freedom of information and privacy are matters of enormous public concern. And this is the statute dealing with those matters in Ontario. All of this is a bit academic since the Act clearly satisfies GNG and that really is the bottom line. James500 (talk) 02:39, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete & redirect to Freedom of information in Canada. It's explained 'in context' with other similar provincial laws there. At least until such time as a real article can replace this 'sub-stub'. I personally would bundle Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act in with this AFD. Exit2DOS 07:03, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Why would we want to delete it first? That is not how articles are merged unless their content is unnacceptable (e.g. copyvio and libel and OR and things that violate NOT and the like).
    • I would hesitate to describe the extremely brief material in Freedom of information in Canada as an explanation.
    • I must say that I think there is no point in merging this to split it off again, which is what will eventually happen. James500 (talk) 07:33, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
      • I never said anything about a merge. A abridged regurgitation of what the law is, is not what the wiki is supposed to be, as the actual source can show that in MUCH better detail. Who says it will ever get rewritten so that it gets "split off again" ? Creating a redirect now would seem like a good way to direct an editor intrested in the subject to where others are working on the same subject, without causing duplication. Exit2DOS 07:48, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
        • There is content in this article that isn't in the proposed merger target. "RSO 1990 c F31" is a reference to a collection of revised statutes and is presumably an acceptable form of citation. For some reason it has been omitted from the proposed merger target. And the proposed merger target does not, unlike this article, condescend to explain, where it does use it, what the abbreviation "RSO" means either.
        • Your answer does not explain why you want to delete this article first, bearing in mind that will consume greater system resources than just redirecting it and will waste a sysop's time.
        • If it is possible to write a decent article on something, someone will do it sooner or later (provided they are not pestered with impatient Afd nominations). It is as inevitable as death and taxes. "There's no end to the writing of books". James500 (talk) 08:07, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
        • Insisting on having a more or less complete article from the outset would defeat the whole point of having a wiki. The reason that Knowledge (XXG) articles are built in lots of small steps is because it has been found to be quicker and more efficient. James500 (talk) 08:17, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
          • 1/"content in this article that isn't in the proposed merger target" so correct the link that is in the target (its just an older version of what you have shown)
          • 2/delete this article first because it is "A abridged regurgitation of what the law is" nothing more, no prose, no citations, no comparable laws, nothing. (aka WP:NOTREPOSITORY re:Public domain or other source material)
          • 3/someone will do it sooner or later... so let it be spun out of the parent article at a time when it is consensus of the maintainers of the parent Article. No need to start by creating duplication with 2 sets of Editors watching 2 different sets of Articles that are about the same thing.
          • 4/"Insisting on having a more or less complete article from the outset would defeat the whole point of having a wiki." ...what? This is not even a Stub yet (that still deserves its {{dead end}} tag). That's why it is common to spin out articles. When they become unwieldy housed in the parent, they get spun out with proper linking back to the parent, and a précis in the parent. There is nothing here TO précis because it is "A abridged regurgitation of what the law is". Exit2DOS 09:25, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
  • "so correct the link that is in the target (its just an older version of what you have shown)" - I am afraid that I don't follow. There is more than a link missing.
  • "no prose" - The first sentence is prose.
  • NOTREPOSITORY - The first sentence is not copied from anything.
  • "no citations" - "RSO 1990 c F31" is a citation. It means chapter F31 of the 1990 edition of a book called The Revised Statutes of Ontario.
  • "no comparable laws" - Are they necessary? I would be more interested in finding amendments, subordinate legislation and case law. Things that are normally more important.
  • "nothing" - The article is clearly not empty.
  • "not even a Stub yet" - This article has been assessed as a stub by an enormously experienced editor. I have no doubt that assessment is correct.
  • "that still deserves its dead end tag" -That template is only for articles that have no internal links. This one does. James500 (talk) 09:47, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Very strong keep. This Act is the codification of freedom of information law for the public sector in Ontario - internationally recognized as a fundamental human right - to say it is not notable is frankly nonsense. The article is not well formed at all but that is not a valid reason for deletion. There are bound to be numerous sources available to improve this article, although I suspect many will be offline sources. I'm going to go see what I can do with it. Ivanvector (talk) 16:38, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. This article has been expanded. James500 (talk) 00:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep - Landmark provincial-level legislation — in Canada's most populous province, to boot. Sources showing. Carrite (talk) 04:13, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
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 Battle Spirits Trading Card Game. SarahStierch (talk) 03:44, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Battle Spirits Saikyou Ginga Ultimate Zero (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Cursory source review materialized nothing that was not routine coverage. Does not appear to pass GNG. Go Phightins! 05:21, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 07:41, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:31, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:31, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
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. Assume good faith - improve and expand before nominating again, please. SarahStierch (talk) 03:51, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Looking for sources about this editorial cartoon series produced lots of funny cartoons but no substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. Tagged for notability since July 2009 with no sources added since. RL0919 (talk) 18:46, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Their own books definitely don't count toward notability, and I don't think GoodReads would either since the content there is user-generated. The ComixTalk review and the interview are relevant. --RL0919 (talk) 17:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
  • You could say that CapitalismMagazine.com is an unreliable source, but the link is an interview of the actual artists themselves, not just a review of their work. Since it's important to some editors that WP be comprehensive in its coverage of people (consider all of the obscure athletes it lists, for example), I would think that C&F would have the amount of notoriety/fame to meet the minimum inclusion requirements. — Loadmaster (talk) 17:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:27, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:26, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
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 Vsauce.  Sandstein  11:36, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

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

No 3rd party coverage outside of Vsauce, making this page redundant, so delete and redirect to there. Otterathome (talk) 15:12, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:19, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Forgive me if I'm not commenting in accordance to Knowledge (XXG)'s rules, but I just had to sign up and try to defend this article. Michael Stevens is a skilled public speaker whose work will have a certain influence on future generations. Just look at the number of subscribers and views of his videos (numbers are in millions). Please, do reconsider. Maidros85 (talk) 16:42, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

There are very, very few actual rules on Knowledge (XXG), though there are conventions and "best practice" guidelines. Notability is the issue here, not skill or influence. Knowledge (XXG) defines notability as significant coverage by independent reliable sources. This would include newspapers, magazines, scientific journals, books, etc. Websites that demonstrate a history of fact-checking and have an editorial department also count. Blogs, personal websites, press releases, and other self-published sources do not. Thus, one can have millions of followers on YouTube or Twitter yet not have the coverage in reliable sources that Knowledge (XXG) requires. Notability is distinct from fame and influence, and it has nothing to do with talent. In order to save the article, it needs citations that demonstrate that the media has noted this individual. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:41, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:59, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Article is about an art style invented by artist VitaliV (the article is authored by User:Vital57). I doubt it is of any general notability and, if it is, is already described in too much length in the VitaliV article. This is an unnecessary promotional content fork. NB there's absolutely no trace of the existence of the "Interfaces or the art of re-coding" book, other than on other wiki pages. Sionk (talk) 21:51, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 05:33, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 06:29, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:07, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
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. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:01, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

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

I came across this article and noticed that it was essentially promotional, so I thought about rewriting it, but I could find no reliable sources that establish notability. I am One of Many (talk) 21:08, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:35, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:35, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 05:34, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:07, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
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. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:01, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Isn't a WP:NOTABLE resort. I've added some external links, but don't see that it adds up to much. Boleyn (talk) 18:10, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Whitefish Bay, Wisconsin is a historic community. I check if the National Register of Historic Places listed the Pabst Whitefish Bay Resort and there was nothing. The article can be restarted in some form if notability is established- if the building itself is historical or not. Thank you-RFD (talk) 13:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 05:36, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:07, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
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. LFaraone 07:31, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

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

This article deserves to be deleted. What few sources people have tried to add have been to blogs and other unreliable sources and the article does not satisfy notability criteria. Furthermore, the subject matter is not verifiable and Knowledge (XXG) is not a how-to. Exhibit:

1. Google news, which should be the easiest place to find reliable information on this process has nothing other than an advertisement and two blogs.

2. What few Google scholar results there are do not come from scientific journals; in fact two of them are even dead.

3. I tried searching on Pubmed using a variety of search terms, but there appears to be little research in the way of topical application of oil for the purpose of cleansing skin.

4. This article may be of more detriment than assistance to readers because several Google books sources mention Knowledge (XXG) is their primary source of information. Knowledge (XXG) should serve to educate and inform the public based on scientific results, not perpetuate homeopathic and holistic medicine practices by serving as a how-to guide.

I am not the first user to air grievances over this article. User:Whig attempted a proposed deletion in March 2009 using the argument that Knowledge (XXG) is not a how-to, with admin Graeme Bartlett (author of the article) immediately deleting the request. User:Quibik added {{refimprove}} and {{notability}} in October 2011, which have not since been acted on. Comments on the history page indicate that many Knowledge (XXG) users are wary of this article:

"but is there truth to any of this?"

"The previous theory behind the method didn't make much sense so I elaborated on the theory."

Graemes responded to the first proposed deletion by saying "I will make it less a how to, but topic itself is notable." Clearly this user believes they own the article and has taken few steps to improve it. In fact, in one edit, (s)he notes that "There are plenty of references, but mostly commercial or blogs so not original, if any want to dispute, pleaes discuss on talk page." I wonder if (s)he will change his/her mind with all this evidence to the contrary? - Sweet Nightmares 16:26, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep This topic is not an academic one, nor a news worthy event, instead it is a beauty treatment. So that is why you don't see it in medical research. The point about prod is that it is not to be used more than once on an article. That is why the recent prods were removed by me. I did change it to not be a how-to article. It was an WP:AFC contribution originally. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 19:47, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
  • There has been citation needed abuse happening here. But there have been references provided removed by the nominator to make this look less notable. However I have now added 3 book references. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
It's not abuse; the sources came from blogs, self-published sources, and other unverified sources. - Sweet Nightmares 20:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
What is abuse is tagging every statement with a cn tag. I know that you are not the original tagger. There are quite a few other books with significant coverage of the topic, but they are not included as I cannot verify their content. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. (Sorry if this is inappropriate; there is no beauty Wikiproject!) - Sweet Nightmares 04:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. - Sweet Nightmares 04:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 05:37, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
  • The overall situation is that there are multiple book references that in themselves show notability for this topic. There are also many blog references that confirm the information contained in the article. There is no actual reason to believe that the blogs are unreliable, and they are not needed to show notability. Whether the method works or not is irrelevant to whether there should be an article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:28, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:07, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
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. Michig (talk) 07:32, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Delete, only taking to afd because of the claim of notability, all sources provided do not pass WP:CORP depth. One is only pictures, one is a business profile, one is directly connected to the source and the wiki one is not reliable at all. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:12, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 05:39, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:04, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
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. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:02, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Subject of article fails to meet notability criteria, and has failed to receive any coverage in independent secondary sources except for reprints of press releases. Most sources cited in articles are reprints of articles that appear to be copyright infringements. Possible autobiography; article created by SPA with no other contributions except this article. Coretheapple (talk) 15:56, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 05:41, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:04, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
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. Or rather, no discussion. Try WP:PROD instead.  Sandstein  11:39, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NALBUM.Doesn't have Japanese article. Boleyn (talk) 15:05, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 05:41, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:04, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
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. Michig (talk) 07:28, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

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

This individual does not appear to have received significant attention yet from secondary sources and therefore fails to meet WP:BIO. He directed a film that appears to be notable, and the film has received such attention, but he so far has not. The citations listed in this article consist mostly of references to various film-related web sites, none of which are independent, and to the University of Hawaii web site which indicates that he is a professor there (professorship does not by itself confer notability: WP:ACADEMIC also not met). My search for additional sources that are clearly secondary turned up nothing other than trivial mentions related to the film. For these reasons, I propose that the article be deleted until such time as the article's subject has met Knowledge (XXG)'s notability requirements. KDS4444 09:16, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Keep, both in regular google search and google book search, Vilsoni Hereniko turns up with quite a few results. Seems to be a notable person in Fiji. --Soman (talk) 14:23, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Google web search results are not considered a reliable criterion for establishing notability (see WP:GOOGLETEST and Google book search results only turn up copies of his own publications, which are not independent secondary sources and therefore not a measure of notability. When making such a "keep" vote, please provide specific evidence to support your vote— that is, evidence of the article's subject having received non-trivial attention in published, reliable, independent, secondary sources. I was unable to do this, which is why I proposed that the article be deleted. Lastly, being notable "in Fiji" does not equate to being a notable person who warrants an article in Knowledge (XXG). Anyone can easily verify this individual's existence, his accomplishments, and his work history, but these things do not translate to notability. KDS4444 10:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Three points: 1) It is possible to understand if a person is notable or not through a google search. However, counting google hits is not a proof of notability. 2) No, it was not just his own books that turned up in the book search (several of the hits are references to his books, in other books). 3) Yes, being notable in Fiji equates to being notable on Knowledge (XXG). --Soman (talk) 13:37, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 05:43, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:03, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
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. Improve and expand, before any renomination consideration, thank you for assuming good faith. SarahStierch (talk) 03:52, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

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

One person's theory, with no references from anybody else. The "peer reviewed paper" referred to in the last paragraph is by the inventor of the theory, has google scholar shows zero citations to it. Of his other work, G Scholar shows none with over 4 citations.

There's a few other papers that use the phrase, none of which appear to be significant of significantly read. DGG ( talk ) 03:58, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Recent Edits that Further Establish Notability: I assume the article has been nominated for deletion over notability concerns. I have made a number of additions to the article that may address these concerns. Specifically, PSCF has been used in two think tank studies, one of which received very extensive media coverage in Canada. Also, at least two economists have mentioned PSCF in their blogs. --Joffemd (talk) 23:13, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 05:44, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:03, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
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 List of Animorphs books.  Sandstein  11:34, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

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

This is an unnecessary list and probably original research. TTN (talk) 18:10, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  10:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:02, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
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. If you have an issue with the closing of this discussion, please take it to Deletion review. I am happy to userfy an article, just ask. Thanks for assuming good faith. SarahStierch (talk) 03:53, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Also:

Ultra.Weekend 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ultra.Weekend 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ultra.Weekend 4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ultra.Weekend 5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ultra.Weekend 6 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

These articles are just track listings; there is no indication of notability asserted by any in the series. I've found no critique or even discussion of the albums, although the producing label is well known. There do appear to be references to their annual music festival as "Ultra weekend", but the compilation albums are unrelated to that event. LFaraone 22:03, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:59, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:54, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
delete, I agree with the arguments of the nominator.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:19, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
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--Ymblanter (talk) 08:55, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Non-notable local event. Fails WP:GNG. Charles (talk) 00:20, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
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.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

↑