Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 October 28

< Knowledge:Articles for deletion‎ | Log

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday September 26 (Thu) September 25 (Wed) September 24 (Tue) More...

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

< 27 October	29 October >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:58, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Mark Hogan (American football)

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

Low-level college football player whose only claim to fame is apparently being "the first scholarship player" to enroll at Georgia State. In my opinion, this alone does not merit notability per WP:ATHLETE. On a sidenote: the article's creator Weshogan41 could be in a conflict-of-interest. bender235 (talk) 23:10, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete Fails Knowledge:NCOLLATH#College_athletes. Sulfurboy (talk) 10:39, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Keep Several aspects of his career are notable and have been covered substantially in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 13:39, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

What "several" aspects? I mean other than him being the first of many scholarship athletes at some university. --bender235 (talk) 16:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

He has had several firsts at two universities and has been covered substantially in reliable independent sources. He's not the most notable athlete in history, but he seems to me to be worth including. Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

You should explain what 'several firsts' you're talking about and how that makes him notable, because I see nothing other than him being the first scholarship athlete (which doesn't seem that significant when you consider they didn't even have a sports program till a couple years ago). Sulfurboy (talk) 17:22, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

It's covered in the article and the cited Orange article. Candleabracadabra (talk) 17:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete He's not notable.--Yankees10 23:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 01:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 01:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Keep clearly passes WP:GNG just based on feature article refernces provided in the article already.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Weak delete. I'm not sure. Being the first scholarship athlete at a new FBS program is certainly interesting, but someone had to be. Any coverage which that generated might well qualify under WP:ONEEVENT. Ditto scoring UNC-Charlotte's first TD; someone was going to do so. His high school career isn't notable. His on-field performance at Georgia State and UNC-Charlotte isn't notable and whatever coverage the has been is routine. If he successfully turns pro then that's a different matter; fair or not playing in the NFL is the standard by which a college career is judged. Mackensen (talk) 12:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- A college football season is not "one event"--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:NCOLLATH.204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:40, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 1 November 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 result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:58, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

William Roshko

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

The article currently has four primary sources and one unreliable source. I have not been able to find any reliable secondary sources to establish notability. GB fan 22:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete - Agree with GB, even if said sources were found, the article would require an entire rewrite, as it seems to lack sufficient context to understand the notability of the subject. Sulfurboy (talk) 23:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Weak Delete article is of some interest but I'm not seeing substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Might be worth merging to a parent subject? Candleabracadabra (talk) 13:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 01:16, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 01:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 01:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete The article asserts what he did is notable - educate Congress on burdensome case loads of SSDI judges leading to unnecessary disability payouts - but the sources don't support that it is notable. Furthermore if that is all he did it might qualify under WP:BLP1E. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:57, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

South Asian Union

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

The proposal can only be found on one person's website, and is therefore not notable, nor sufficiently verifiable to be a WP article. While there are some other references to be found, they are not to this scheme, but for a union covering the nations of a 'minimal' south Asia (i.e. as the term is usually understood), not all of southern Asia as with this scheme. Imc (talk) 22:07, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete Seems to be an article about an organization that tries to pass as an article about a notable policy consideration. I see no secondary coverage discussing a "South Asian Union". Sulfurboy (talk) 10:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Delete someone's proposal for a South Asian Union. Candleabracadabra (talk) 13:33, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 01:16, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:56, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Manoj Saxena

AfDs for this article:

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

When I first found this article the subject appeared to be notable. The more I've looked into it though, the less this seems to be the case. An AFD in 2007 ended in delete and this is the only source that I could find on google news and factiva where he is the subject. He has received many mentions in the media because he is a manager of IBM's Watson computer but brief mentions are not sufficient to meet the 'in depth' requirement of the general notability guideline. SmartSE (talk) 22:03, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete. I proposed this for speedy deletion as G11 last week. Since that went through, I did not draw attention to the obvious COI issue here. I've now done so, at Knowledge:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Manoj Saxena. If we are to have an article on this person (which I'm far from convinced that we should) then let's have one created through normal Knowledge process, by an unconnected editor who believes that the man is notable, and not this promotional COI mess. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: major memory lapse here. I didn't mention the COI, but someone else did, now at Knowledge:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 67#Manoj Saxena. Sorry about that. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:11, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete. The original version of this article, deleted following Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Manoj Saxena, was very short, and gave very little indication of notability. The re-created version of the article on the face of it seemed to do a better job of making its subject look notable, but, as Smartse has said above, closer examination shows that the apparent indications of notability were superficial. Sources that have been cited (including both sources currently in the article and those that have been removed) have included the following: talks given by Saxena, not about him; an announcement that IBM had bought up a company, with a brief mention that Saxena was its chairman, and would continue as manager; a report that Saxena, an IBM employee, had given a talk to other IBM employees, telling them why he was working for IBM; a patent filing which merely gives Saxena's name in a list of those responsible for developing the subject of the patent; a substantially promotional page about him on the web site of "Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership", which shows every sign of existing for the purpose of promotion of business people; at least two pages that don't even mention Saxena; etc etc... nothing at all that could be regarded as substantial coverage in reliable independent sources.

(Note:The article is substantially due to two single-purpose accounts that have contributed nothing unrelated to Saxena. It was previously full of glowing promotional content. It was tagged for speedy deletion as promotion, and I speedily deleted it. I restored and userfied it on request, and it has now had the blatantly promotional content removed. However, it is clear that it exists essentially for promotional purposes.) JamesBWatson (talk) 09:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete fails notability in sources Canadiancow1 (talk) 02:14, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 01:14, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete due to lack of in depth biographical coverage of the subject, and the somewhat promotional tone of the article. Gigs (talk) 17:47, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

No Delete The in depth biographical content was asked to be edited as it was deemed promotional. Additional edits have been made to add bio and removed content that seemed promotional. Thank you for your re-review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halenorma (talk • contribs) 19:03, 1 November 2013‎

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:56, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Language Location Method

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

The citations in the article are both very general and were published before the article says this method was created. I couldn't find any reliable sources online either under "Language Location Method" or under "Sprachpositions-Methode" (its German name). Fails WP:GNG. — Mr. Stradivarius 21:59, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

For more information on Language Location Method please search/visit www.biglittleoaks.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles Bloaks (talk • contribs) 08:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete advertorial. Candleabracadabra (talk) 13:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 01:14, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

It looks like WP:OR and it quacks like link spam for the site Charles Bloaks references above, though I'll stop short of calling article content a WP:DUCK. Instead, I'll note that I found no scholarly articles mentioning the method and say delete for failing GNG. Cnilep (talk) 02:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:55, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Edward Wright-Baker

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

NCAA BCS quarterback that received nothing more that WP:ROUTINE coverage. Not highly-recruited, started 4 games in 3 years and never received any conference or team awards. The notability tag on the article has been there about 2 years. X96lee15 (talk) 21:34, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete Agree with nom and I did not find substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 13:32, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 01:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 01:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Keep like it or not, starting quarterbacks for Division I FBS typically generate more than enough press to surpass WP:GNG--even those that start for only 4 games. Typically such articles are kept. Based on the coverage in natioanl publications and websites such as ESPN, I see no reason to make an exception here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:00, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Delete. Routine Google News results; no obvious claim to notability. There may be a need for a broader discussion about how to evaluate college players and the GNG, given ESPN's massive coverage of the sport. An FBS QB who played in 11 games over three years isn't notable on that basis unless he's done something else. Mackensen (talk) 12:32, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- Comment I'd be interested in argumentation saying that a subject matter is not notable because it gets too much press coverage.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:24, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Delete. He had won a battle that was talked about frequently, but once he became the starter he didn't last long, and had no notable achievements. DMC511 15:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:NCOLLATH.204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:55, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Ivan Smolović

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by an IP without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:17, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

This is wrong decision — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peko44 (talk • contribs) 22:21, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete: In addition to not having played in a fully professional league, I couldn't find much in the way of reliable sources that show why he's notable. Lugia2453 (talk) 22:25, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
This is valid evidence that he is a professional football player(Soccerway) , and i dont know what you want ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peko44 (talk • contribs) 22:29, 28 October 2013 (UTC) — Peko44 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Being a professional does not make him notable, just like a professional doctor or a professional carpenter are not necessarily notable. Having played in a professional league is a different story. You haven't shown that yet. -- Alexf 12:14, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Maybe in the future but not now. -- Alexf 12:12, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Delete - per above, has neither played in an FPl nor plauyed senior international football. Fenix down (talk) 17:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 01:12, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 01:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete: Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 14:38, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

He started playing professional league since 2010 Profile at Worldfootball.net he deserve Knowledge profile and he is famous in Montenegro ! response to Alexf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cicimau (talk • contribs) 17:27, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:51, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Mark I. Sutherland

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

Sutherland is, to be sure, a published author, but there is no indication that he is notable as an author. All external links in the article are to Sutherland's own writings, not to anything that has been written about him. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 21:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete I found a bit of independent coverage but it's not enough for WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. All his books are self-published and he's a very run-of-the-mill journalist/columnist. Not notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:36, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 01:12, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 01:12, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 01:12, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete The problem is the sources, as always it's not what a person has done, rather what other people have said about what the person has done. So there is one book review in Harvest. A brief mention in a local SL paper (local papers are given less weight due to being less than neutral markers of notability). And that's about it. Not enough for Knowledge notability standards. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:50, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Pemba Tamang (karate)

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

Shotokan teacher that doesn't meet WP:MANOTE. Also fails WP:GNG with a lack of significant independent coverage since he founded the NSKF. Mdtemp (talk) 20:54, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:37, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 01:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete Fails MANOTE and GNG.204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:39, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Delete I found nothing to show he meets WP:MANOTE. My search did not find the significant independent coverage I believe is required to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 20:56, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:50, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Justin Scoggins

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

MMA fighter with no top tier fights so fails WP:NMMA. The fact that he's signed a UFC contract means this article is at least WP:TOOSOON and that assuming notability is WP:CRYSTALBALL.Mdtemp (talk) 20:37, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete Doesn't meet WP:NMMA. LiberatorLX (talk) 11:34, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 01:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Delete Currently has no top tier fights and lacks non-routine coverage. No objection to article being recreated if his UFC career is successful enough to meet WP:NMMA. Papaursa (talk) 20:44, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:49, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Jay Ellis

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

Veteran MMA fighter (53 losses) with no top tier fights so he fails WP:NMMA. Notability is not inherited (WP:NOTINHERITED) so who he fought doesn't matter.Mdtemp (talk) 20:32, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete Doesn't meet WP:NMMA. LiberatorLX (talk) 11:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 01:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Delete A remarkable number of losses, but no top tier fights so he fails WP:NMMA. The article is also unsourced, so he fails WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 20:34, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Kristof Midoux

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

Fails WP:NMMA with only one top tier fight. Defeating someone (Tom Howard) with no MMA wins does not show notability nor does it matter who you competed against since notability is not inherited.Mdtemp (talk) 20:25, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:35, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete Doesn't meet WP:NMMA. LiberatorLX (talk) 11:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 01:00, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Delete Doesn't meet WP:NMMA and lacks significant independent coverage for WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 20:40, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:52, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Tom Blackledge

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

Fails WP:NMMA with only one top tier fight.Mdtemp (talk) 20:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:35, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete Doesn't meet WP:NMMA. LiberatorLX (talk) 11:36, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 01:00, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Delete Doesn't meet WP:NMMA and lacks the coverage needed to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 20:38, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:53, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Mal Foki

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

Retired MMA fighter who had one top tier fight and two boxing matches--failing both WP:NMMA and WP:NBOX. The only sources are links to his MMA and boxing records, failing WP:GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 20:08, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:32, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete Doesn't meet WP:NMMA or WP:NBOX. LiberatorLX (talk) 11:36, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 01:00, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:00, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete Fails to meet WP:NMMA, WP:NBOX, or WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 20:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

The result was merge to Beijing International Studies University. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:39, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Timeline of Beijing International Studies University

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

Doesn't merit a stand alone article. I tried to redirect this to the parent article and was reverted by the article's creator, who is adding unsourced content and creating peripheral articles and categories related to the university. Do we include stand alone articles listing student unions and clubs and societies ? Given the abundance of WP:EL these look like adverts. JNW (talk) 15:34, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi there, I've been updating the Timeline lately and I reckon it looks better now. As for the clubs and societies issue, well, I've been away from Wiki for a while, so when I created the article, the whole wikification thing was a stranger to me ... but I guess you are right, and I'll modify it soon. Thanks for the attention. BTW, should I indent here? Corphine (talk) 22:52, 15 October 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) 01:58, 21 October 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) 20:07, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Merge to parent article - a separate "Timeline" article might be justified if there was a long history like the Guozijian (a woefully short article), but this institution is barely 50 years old and the events detailed in this article are largely what we might expect to see on the university's own website or maybe even a report for the university management. So far, ten of the twelve references are from the university website, so it is difficult to see this as anything other than advertising. As it stands many of the bullet points detail mundane and un-notable events such as the suspension of classes and the school paper because of the Cultural Revolution, the university changing affiliation several times, the arrival of foreign students, some sort of student union rebranding etc. BiSU was not the only institution to suffer during the Cultural Revolution, and changes of affiliation are nothing unique. Foreign students arriving might be notable if BISU was the first institution ever to do such a thing, and student unions rebranding is about as remarkable as reading about some company office has been repainted. Merge this back to the main article. Green Giant (talk) 22:50, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

---

Reply to Green Giant — Hello, thanks for your feedback. Indeed, BISU is of a much shorter history, but hopefully you weren't saying younger institutions do not merit a history/timeline article. I suppose it's ok to create one, as long as the events are not meaningless bullets — as for the trivia you mentioned above, I'll explain why they are not in the last part. In fact, to work on this timeline, I read several wiki articles titled Timeline/Chronology/History of *** University beforehead, including those filled with long paragraphs like the histories of Cornell and MSU, and simpler ones like Timeline of the University of Idaho and Chronology of Towson University. I read them with respect alike, and I felt I could make better use of the Timeline, instead of just making long lists of campus construction and new presidents.

Regarding the sourcing issue, like most of the universities, the history of BISU is documented in its yearbooks (published every five or ten years), also annually in the university newspaper, and that's why most of the materials are from the uni website. I do have two different hardcopy of BISU Yearbooks, so it is virtually possible to remove the links and modify the citations into book-based ones — if they are expected to appear more credible looking, although this makes no difference in essence. I attached links in the references simply because some of the information has been made available online. As for third-party sources, I'll work on it.

Lastly, to address your concern, I reread the article. "undane and un-notable" stuffs including "the suspension of classes and the school paper because of the Cultural Revolution, the university changing affiliation several times, the arrival of foreign students, some sort of student union rebranding etc" take up about 9 out of the 40 entries, with 2 for suspension, 1 student union rebranding, 1 foreign students arrival, and 5 changes in affiliation.

3 of the 9 are presented along with events of greater significance: the establishment of the university, branch institute established and abolished, the first agreement contract signed with university from overseas.
Why are affiliation changes relevant. Firstly, affiliation changes are not autonomous decisions; they usually indicate changes in the government policies. Second, as far as I know, BISU is the only university in China that has experienced affiliation changes for so many times — and the changes are radical and influential to the university's development, if you look into the trajectory it went through (Culture Ministry — Foreign Ministry — Education Ministry — Tourism Ministry — currently the Beijing government) and compare this to the changes in its academic structures (not yet included in the article for now).
Student union rebranding: this is the only entry ever related to branding or student union, and I don't see why it appears mundane. Do other student unions frequently rebrand themselves? For BISU Union it is the only rebranding event so far. Besides, I casually discovered that the union logo has being wrongly claimed by others and in the meantime a news article on this rebranding was found on the university website, so I mentioned it a little bit.
Foreign students arrival: not sure if BISU was the first to accept international students, but presumably, it is one of the pioneers in this, as China was a relatively sealed country before 1978 — and the first international students commenced at BISU in 1981.
Cultural Revolution: No, it wasn't the only affected uni. But it was one of the two tertiary institutions not closed down during that period. I'll try to find some credible sources to add to this. Corphine (talk) 10:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Just to add a few words — I agree that this article needs improving, but a deletion is too much for me. Corphine (talk) 10:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Comment - I'm not sure why a whole timeline is needed for an article that is not overly long. This runs the risk of being a content fork. Bearian (talk) 16:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Delete as overly detailed. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:47, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Merge to parent article - agree with Green Giant above. The timeline article does not demonstrate notability on its own - the events themselves are not notable, though I do think it is interesting to have the timeline as part of the main article Depthdiver (talk) 04:39, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
merge Not really appropriate for a separate article. The only need for one is for very extensive material on longstanding organizations, where the material may be excessive if everything significant is included in the main article. Otherwise, the reader is best served by having it all in one place. And, even when it is necessary to break out a history section, then it should still be written in paragraphs, unless the material is too complicated to show otherwise. This is an encyclopedia, and it is written in English prose, not a list of isolated points. DGG ( talk ) 01:23, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:40, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Kryoman

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

Doesn't seem to pass WP:BIO. I don't see the subject of multiple reliable secondary sources here but I'm not American, so may be undervaluing some of the sources. Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:44, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 October 13. —cyberbot I _Online 15:00, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 13 October 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) 02:00, 21 October 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) 20:06, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Keep Seems to be a fairly well established and somewhat successful stage act. TMZ refers to him as "the popular club music icon who dances on stage in an electronic suit". Good enough for me. Candleabracadabra (talk) 20:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 23:22, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:00, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Maxim Grishin

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

MMA fighter who fails WP:NMMA with no top tier fights.Mdtemp (talk) 20:00, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:29, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete Doesn't meet WP:NMMA. LiberatorLX (talk) 11:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 01:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete Fails to meet NMMA.204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:06, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Guram Gugenishvili

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

MMA fighter who fails WP:NMMA with no top tier fights. A second tier title does not show notability.Mdtemp (talk) 19:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:29, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete Doesn't meet WP:NMMA. LiberatorLX (talk) 11:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 01:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete No top tier fights so fails NMMA.204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:36, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:06, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Chris Barnett

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

MMA fighter who fails WP:NMMA with no top tier fights.Mdtemp (talk) 19:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:28, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete Doesn't meet WP:NMMA. LiberatorLX (talk) 11:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 01:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete Fails to meet WP:NMMA. Papaursa (talk) 20:32, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

The result was redirect to The Ultimate Fighter: Heavyweights. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:05, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Darrill Schoonover

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

Lacks the top tier fights required to meet WP:NMMA.Mdtemp (talk) 19:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:28, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Weak Delete Doesn't meet WP:NMMA, maybe meets WP:GNG with his feuds with Rampage Jackson. LiberatorLX (talk) 11:39, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Weak Keep May pass WP:GNG if you include his appearance on The Ultimate Fighter as well as his military career. Into the Rift (talk) 23:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

What is notable about his military career? I didn't see anything mentioned except he was discharged for high blood pressure.204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 01:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Redirect to The Ultimate Fighter: Heavyweights. Nothing to show this person meets any individual notability requirements--fails NMMA and GNG. Redirect seems better than deleting.204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Redirect to The Ultimate Fighter: Heavyweights Doesn't meet any notability criteria for an individual article. In past cases for MMA fighters, we've always redirected to the appropriate TUF article. Papaursa (talk) 20:25, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Kenny Garner

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

MMA fighter who fails WP:NMMA with no top tier fights. Second tier championships do not show notability.Mdtemp (talk) 19:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:27, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete Doesn't meet WP:NMMA. LiberatorLX (talk) 11:39, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 01:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete I agree with the previous comments--he fails WP:NMMA and I don't see coverage to show he meets WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 20:22, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:04, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Transcendental Meditation technique

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

Merge to Transcendental_Meditation as a duplicate WP:CFORK. Per the opening lines of this article "The Transcendental Meditation technique is a specific form of mantra meditation developed by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. It is often referred to as Transcendental Meditation or simply, TM. The Existing TM article is quite short summary style currently, so there probably is a good amount of content in this article to be merged over. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Clear Keep, as was created by consensus May I suggest the nominator reads the talk archives of Transcendental_Meditation - this may take them a little time, but time is infinite, and there are only 41 archives.

Briefly, it was agreed that the main TM article, about 125Kb in September 2010, was too long and should be split into sub articles. Transcendental Meditation technique is one of the sub-articles created by this consensus - and was created in this diff in the edit history of Transcendental Meditation, with the edit summary "move as suggested to sub-page", on 2 September 2010 - Arjayay (talk) 19:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Keep This article is about a practice of a religion. The main article is about the religion generally. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:31, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
I dont believe this shit but, im very curious what this stuff is all about, and was surprised to see the removal tag on the page. Fix it, dont delete it. Deletion is ignorance. 75.119.224.220 (talk) 20:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
This article is very well-written and refers to a well-known activity.It contains views of both supporters and skeptics and I believe would be of great value to a curious reader wanting to know more.

The whole article should stay, as is. 218.250.145.11 (talk) 06:20, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 01:07, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Scandinavian Psychologist

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

Article PRODded with reason "New journal, to be launched in the first quarter of 2014. Article creation vastly premature. No independent sources, not indexed anywhere (not surprising, as it doesn't really exist yet). Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals.". DePRODded with stated reason: "The journal is open to submissions, has received attention in Norwegian media and set to become the largest Open-Access journal in psychology in Scandinavia: http://www.nordlys.no/nyheter/article6854869.ece". The link points to a very small item in a newspaper that according to our article has a circulation of less than 30,000. That the "journal is slated to become the largest Open-Access journal in psychology in Scandinavia remains to be seen (see WP:TOOSOON). PROD reason therefore still stands, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 18:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete following WP:TOOSOON. Once launched it may be suitable for an article.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 02:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Keep Hi, there are many references (independent sources) with regard to this journal:

http://www.nordlys.no/nyheter/article6854869.ece

http://www.dagensmedisin.no/nyheter/nytt-nettsted-for-psykologiformidling/

http://bodonu.no/bodo-mann-starter-nytt-nettsted/

Therefore this article should not be deleted. It also has its own webpage: www.psykologisk.no All the collaborators of the journal can be seen here: http://psykologisk.no/faglige-medarbeidere/ --Madeleinemahin (talk) 16:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC) — Madeleinemahin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment I have already commented on the Nordlys article above. Dagens Medisin seems to be a more important source, but the article is very brief and arguably more about the persons than the journal. Bodø nu, like Nordlys is a local newspaper with a small circulation; the article is just a few short paragraphs. I find this coverage really too thin to base an article on. Wait a few years until the journal has really become notable and then re-create the article. At this point it is just too soon. --Randykitty (talk) 17:27, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 01:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 01:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

delete Too soon. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 04:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete per WP:TOOSOON PianoDan (talk) 15:31, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

The result was keep. Closed early per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Ben Gurion High School

AfDs for this article:

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

This page is being nominated for deletion because it contains practically no content (actually even less than the previous nomination) and this issue has been longstanding (since 2010). The reason the previous nomination was denied is because the contributor said that all high schools are inherently notable, but schools are *not* inherently notable under WP. This page should be deleted. Alphachimera (talk) 16:58, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Keep. The longstanding community consensus is that high schools are presumptively notable; that is, there are assumed to be sources available, even if not in the article, in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Five minutes of searching revealed a couple of admittedly lightweight mentions in Haaretz articles and a paywalled Miami Herald article about Ben Johnson's visit to the school. I'm sure a more comprehensive search of Israeli material will reveal more (at the very least, I presume there's some comparative data about high school performance and the like put out by the appropriate governmental agencies there), and I see no reason to make this an exception to our generally permissive high school article inclusion standards. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:21, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Keep as a high school. No reason to think that sources cannot be found to meet WP:ORG. We keep high schools for very good reasons; not only do they influence the lives of thousands of people but they also play a significant part in their communities. Expansion not deletion is the way to go with such stubs. The Whispering Wind (talk) 19:24, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Strong Keep I like High Schools. They are used by a ton of folk, the community as well, and encourage youngsters to come in as editors when they see their page on the site. Well worth a vote. scope_creep talk 19:46 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Keep per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES & Knowledge:Notability (high schools). Northamerica1000 00:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Snow Keep. Per above. --Epeefleche (talk) 04:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Keep. Yes, secondary schools are generally considered to be inherently notable under long-standing precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:11, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Gabriel Green

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

Indicated to be among the "least well-known of the classic 1950s contactees". Perennial political candidate, etc. I don't think we have enough independent sources to write a WP:BIO on this person. jps (talk) 16:21, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Keep or maybe merge to an article on contactees? Covered in independent sources. As to their reliability, well, whether or not he was in contact with Extraterrestrials I will leave to others to decide. Certainly haveing contact with beings from Korender is a strong assertion of notability. Candleabracadabra (talk) 20:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

*Delete. Locating independent reliable sources on this person has proven difficult. I saw a couple hits on Google News from local newspapers describing his UFO club, but that is insufficient to establish notability. The article certainly doesn't help by noting that he's known mostly for his obscurity. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:01, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

He's covered quite substantially in various books that address this type of subject matter. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, maybe I was too quick to judge them as unreliable, fringe, and/or local. I still not convinced it's a keeper, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:43, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Keep. The quote provided by the nom is (I presume) from the main source used in writing the article, UFOs and Popular Culture (ABC-CLIO). His inclusion in that book meets significant coverage in a reliable source and apparently is plenty to write the article with. Quite a few mentions in other books. He also had coverage in contemporary sources like the LA Times clippings. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 04:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Keep. There are sufficient independent sources available to write an objective bio. LuckyLouie (talk) 22:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Che-Neng Yuen (wushu)

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

On notability grounds. Single reference is to a single school website. The huge collection of links seems to be to everything but the subject. Peter Rehse (talk) 15:13, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 15:13, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete Unsourced article with no supported claims of notability. Fails to meet WP:MANOTE or WP:GNG. Mdtemp (talk) 20:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Delete Fails GNG and MANOTE.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:43, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:15, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

USA surveillance tools

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

Copy (but not copyvio) of here, sourced with non-existing links or blogposts. Totally unreliable and WP:OR. Meaningless list The Banner talk 14:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete. Looks like it's only just barely intelligible enough to avoid being speedy deleted as nonsense. This is just a list of random code names alleged to be associated with the NSA. It's completely unverifiable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:08, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Delete per NinjaRobotPirate: this is pretty incomprehensible Nick-D (talk) 08:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Strong Keep deleting this carefully researched and useful article would be an act of vandalism. However it should probably be moved to a better title like "NSA internal project codenames" or "List of NSA surveillance systems". It also needs an explanatory introduction. -- pde (talk) 18:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I have moved the article and begun and introduction. If people want stronger sourcing, it needs to be researched and added. -- pde (talk) 18:37, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOTVAND. Please do not make statements like "would be an act of vandalism". Also WP:ITSUSEFUL, WP:HARDWORK. In addition, Moving articles while they are at AfD is discouraged, as it breaks the AfD closing tools. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:18, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Delete Nick-D said it best, "per NinjaRobotPirate: this is pretty incomprehensible". Plus there are programs listed that were run by the CIA and have been declassified. Bgwhite (talk) 05:49, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Withhold decision until the 2013 mass surveillance disclosures are over, otherwise, merge to List of government surveillance projects -A1candidate (talk) 17:53, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Delete per Skhaen: hi people, some months ago i create this page, now we work on nsa-observer.net and it's far, far, far better! feel free to delete, or upgrade it :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skhaen (talk • contribs) 13:29, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:14, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Jeremiah Lexer

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

Non-notable subject for whom no reliable sources can be found. Article created by SPA. The references listed are two nonspecific websites and what appear to be promotional websites/blogs for a "haunt" attraction. PROD deleted by SPA. Geoff 14:39, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete. May even be a hoax. Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete. Hoax. I don't have a reliable source to make this official (not that the article has a reliable source to begin with), but postings by local residents confirm that the story is manufactured as marketing for area haunted house activities. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:20, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Speedy Delete as a hoax. Cavarrone 06:48, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:14, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Food Tank: The Food Think Tank

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

Does not appear to be notable. Attempted to clean up, removing materials sourced to Food Tank's own website and to its founder; almost nothing reliable is left as the refs to 'published in' are either by Food Tank people like Nierenberg, or are brief mentions not conferring notability. Google search is confounded by actual food storage tanks, blogs, twitter etc, but it was hard to find anything substantial on the organisation that wasn't self-published. Found a few events and passing mentions. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 00:55, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete All given citations represent either letters to the editor or editorials written by founders of Food Tank published in various places. None of the references represent significant coverage of this organization. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 11:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:ORG,WP:ADVERT and WP:COATRACK and lacks independent sources .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:25, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Delete per all of the above. Logical Cowboy (talk) 19:33, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:13, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Puthia Raj bari

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

There are no citations or references that will show wp:notability Jguard18 13:45, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

help! what shall i do next? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.234.203.175 (talk) 18:06, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Keep Did the nominator follow WP:BEFORE? Google Books provides snippet views such as "a particularly striking example of the confrontation of palace and temple" and full view such as this; main Google search provides pieces such as "one of the finest old Rajbari (King's palace) of Bangladesh" . Improve, not delete. AllyD (talk) 19:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Keep - Meets WP:N, although not by a great margin, at least based upon sources available online. Source examples include: , , . Perhaps additional offline sources are available. Northamerica1000 01:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Keep: Of course it's notable. It's an historic and rather attractive building built for an historic figure. It's also an interesting fusion of intercontinental architecture with strong Palladian influences. There are plenty of references if someone cares to look for them. Perhaps the nominator would be better off spending his time doing so, rather than making time wasting nominations such as this. Giano 08:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Keep per everyone else. There are multiple articles in the Bangladesh Daily Star () which can be used to expand and reference the information currently in the article. See also this in Banglapedia which has a fairly extensive description of the architecture and calls it "is the most notable structure in the area". After this AfD ends, the article should be moved to Puthia Rajbari, the way the name is normally rendered in the sources. Voceditenore (talk) 09:34, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Keep - per all above (except nom). Barring BLP issues, WP:N only requires the existence of sources, not that they be placed in the article. Improvement of an article of a notable topic is always welcome, not deletion.--Oakshade (talk) 04:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Keep Eminently notable building with a notable history and interesting architectural attributes. I also agree with all the well-considered "Keep" rationales just above. Δρ.Κ. 05:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:20, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

List of terrorist incidents, July–December 2013

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

WP:OR and POV. Author chooses incidents to his own likings and ignores discussions. The Banner talk 13:21, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Keep but remove acts by states (e.g. US drone attacks) and other dubious entries. This is a subpage of List of terrorist incidents which claims to be "a list of non-state terrorist incidents". There's a risk of POV with anything about terrorism, but it's an important subject and content disputes can be dealt with in various ways without deletion (removing state terrorism also makes it less contentious). --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:58, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment Why censor one thing but not the other , this is diffently a issue with wp:npov i would say a rewrite is needed. Jguard18 14:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

IGNORE discussion? You did not reply to the commetns that you initiated and removed it per your liking/. Conversely I partook in the discussion. Its POV without state incidents and we had this discussion when the article awas under the different titole. SNOW close here as deletion is not an excuse for consensus where discussion is ongoing.

And as I write the OP first tags the article, makes ONE comment on talk and never return to discuss, then removes, upon revert, he nominated this for deletion (with still no comment in discussion other than the one to express his view which he accuses me of violating when I avctually partook in the discussion. Seems he has no understanding of discussion, it is NOT based on one editor making his view on the talk page and expecting it to stay). DISCUSS.Lihaas (talk) 09:33, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Ignoring the fact and discussion, yes. You have by now restored the controversial actions at least six times without any comment. On the talk page, two people said that is shouldn't be there, and you still restored. And when you reply with a comment that reads as "I want it, I maintain the list, I put it in and you shut up" I do know that I have a POV-pusher on my hand. The Banner talk 10:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but I HAVE commented to your discussion and then waited for reply before other reverts did not discuss. You want the definition the onus is on YOU to seek that via consensus. Show me where I isaid I made a list and I want it and you should shut up? Please done distort realirty to gfit your views. There is NO version where I said that. The othe ruser made a suggestion starting with the key "EYE OF THE BEHOLDER", that you forget to read what you like? And in turn I responded to him with a suggestion too to move to the previous incarnation. Then there was no reply for 4 days while you still reverted without consensus.Lihaas (talk) 11:23, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Seven times now. The Banner talk 11:25, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

You can count till the cows come homwe to suit your stats, but the fact remains you did not reply for 4 days while reverting till you were called to.

Not to mention your personal attacks vs. content discussions.(Lihaas (talk) 11:27, 29 October 2013 (UTC)).

Per Colapeninsula, the cited page mentions in the first page "The following is a list of non-state terrorist incidents" (emphasis added)Lihaas (talk) 11:29, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I would like to add my two cents here - I used to do the MAJORITY of edits on these articles until around June of this year, when I finally gave up because of User:Lihaas and his constant complaints, reverts, and otherwise disruptive behavior. It anyone bothers to look at previous article of the same type, especially in 2012, you can clearly see that they are way more concise, contain only the most relevant information and in general attacks that are somehow noteworthy - either through sheer number of casualties, symbolic importance of attack, or other reasons. We had numerous discussions on talk pages because he kept adding every single little IDF incident (for example), or kept expanding description for attacks in Pakistan to include stuff like street names, full names of doctors and police officials, etc. I am a serious scholar of the topic and truly believe it is important to have these articles - maybe even in the form that I managed to keep during 2011 and 2012 - but at some point I could not keep up with his constant warring, so I just gave up and went back to editing pages on the Iraqi insurgency and some other conflicts that are of personal interest to me, leaving this July - December article to its fate. As you can see, the results have not been pretty, and in this shape the article is total !@#$ - it needs to be HEAVILY trimmed, cleaned of more than a few events that do not fit in there, not to mention many of the death tolls are way off since no one bothers to update them after day 1. On a side note, I have seen time and time again other people go to Lihaas' talk page and complain of him basically enforcing his own views as reason enough to change WHATEVER in an article, and I would bet this is not the first one that he has almost completely destroyed and chased people out of. THat having been said, I vouch to try and bring things back in line, if the article is kept, and I personally vote to Keep it, but definitely have a discussion on the length of entries and the inclusion of dubious stuff like "state terrorism" - Lihaas kept arguing that there is NO clear definition of terrorism, despite me pasting more than a few in one of the talk pages for an earlier "List of ____" article - if needed, anyone can look those up, and I will certainly go back to them as proof of concept. Skycycle (talk) 13:11, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Here are the earlier articles that are almost 100% done by myself - January - June 2013 and July - December 2012. I want to point everyone's attention to this discussion on the the January-June talk page that might serve as proof to what I said above, as well as the one over here on July-December, where Lihaas even says "Sorry no. Yuor definition of terrorism is not the only one prevaent. you cant say "do a little resarch", if you want to assert this the onus is on you to prove this is the case and not personal opinion (a la IDONTLIKEIT). There certainly is not 1 definition of terrorism worldwide, thats an opinion. There is state and non-state sterrorism.Originally meaning political violence, it has . racial and religions violence (particualrly the latter) are a product of politics. Just because estalished state institutions done label it so doesnt change the meaining" (typos kept). Despite the fact that I provided a lengthy answer with links to universally accepted definitions of terrorism by institutions with a global outreach such as the UN, as well as the EU, there was no reply from him. So there you have it, in a nutshell - I am not THAT familiar with what these kinds of editors are called in WP, but certainly when it fits his own bill, he works it around - meaning that I have to "prove" what terrorism is, as if the UN definition is somehow untrustworthy, but he can edit and expand and basically do whatever he likes, because he can always quote one or another rule and twist them to serve his own purposes. Skycycle (talk) 13:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

And likewise you will see that I stopped editing such pages because of giving up due to you (much as you clam now) and left the page to you to edit ;;as you saw fit. So while you say I dint reply, I didn't edit to my version, as you claim, either. That was beside the fact that I disagree with any definition, it was your version of writing it up that drove me away. There are 2 sides to very coin. There was however the same discussion and consensus that tmoed the page to List of armed conflcits and incidents and a LACK of discussion in moving it back to terrorist incidents. (vcertainly I as the main user of that page was not informed of a move discussion before seeing it moved)Lihaas (talk) 20:36, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I adore your way of NOT replying to most of what I said, but just what you find useful - it was never MY definition that you "did not like", it's the United Nations definition of terrorism *cough* ... I was not involved in any move, and once more - please proof read before you post, it's very weird to see elementary spelling mistakes that you made because (I assume) you were banging away on a keyboard. We all make the effort, so why not you? Skycycle (talk) 18:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment - again, I have a real concern that this will become a content fork, along with the other similar lists, from terrorism. I will not oppose its being kept. Bearian (talk) 16:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Keep - basic WP:GNG. Information in it can be discussed at the discussion page.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:50, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 23:56, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Ngoni Takawira

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

Page was creaated in January 2009 by an editor who has made no other contributions to Knowledge. The subject is a businessman, the chief executive of a South African clothing company that is not notable enough to have Knowledge article, based in a shopping centre that is not notable enough to have a Knowledge article. (I know, maybe they just haven't been written yet.) The sources provided are all dead links. A Google search produces nothing of note, just the usual Knowledge clones, Facebook, directories etc, but no substantive independent references. It's a similar story for the company, Ama Kip Kip, with the addition of commercial sites selling its products. No indication anywhere of notability. Emeraude (talk) 10:38, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete The article is also present at User:Bombadigital, so it is presumably an autobiography. Though the firm co-founded by the subject does get a mention in a 100 emerging brands list (on a WP-blacklisted site, so no link here) I am finding no reliable 3rd party sources to indicate that the subject has biographical notability. AllyD (talk) 20:21, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Delete alas the sources the editor has attempted to use are not persistent URLs, so we can't tell what kind of coverage there was. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:45, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:18, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Brian Houston (fighter)

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

On notability grounds - has yet to have even one top tier fight - although one is apparently scheduled. Long way to achieve WP:MMANOT Peter Rehse (talk) 10:28, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:28, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete Fails WP:NMMA and is WP:TOOSOON since he has no top tier fights. Can be recreated when/if he meets WP:NMMA.Mdtemp (talk) 20:43, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Delete Doesn't meet WP:NMMA. LiberatorLX (talk) 11:39, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:18, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Matthew Sergeant

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

Composer appears to be of zero cultural significance and this article has been orphaned for over 2 years now. Appears to have been created as part of an ego-trip. Links appear to lead to nowhere and the top link looks like a pornographic website in Japanese. Deafdumbandblindkid (talk) 08:59, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete - Not notable. Would even go as far as to say it's a candidate for speedy deletion. EvergreenFir (talk) 09:34, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 10:13, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 10:13, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete Not a candidate for speedy deletion, because the article makes a few claims of notability, but I don't see the coverage to meet WP:GNG. The prize he's won isn't very famous, the positions he's held don't establish notability, and simply being broadcast even on national radio doesn't guarantee notability. He's still a postgrad student, so he may well have a glittering career ahead of him, but searching Google/books/news only gives passing references. I'd like to see in-depth reviews of his work, detailed profiles in reliable sources, and/or serious musicological study of his work. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Comment -- He seems to have a small body of work, but it is very likley that each has had just one performance. I think the answer is NOTYET notable, but may be soon. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Moldova_in_the_Eurovision_Song_Contest_2013#Semifinal_2.. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:20, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Linda Persson

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

Single-purpse account Lindapersson75 seems awfully determined we should have an article on... Linda Persson, but what, really, has she done that's so notable? I see nothing here indicating she passes WP:MUSICBIO or any other iteration of WP:BIO.

And while we're at it, the article on her twin sister Ylva Persson, penned by single-purpose account Casagirl75, should also draw scrutiny. Biruitorul 03:23, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Redirect both to Moldova_in_the_Eurovision_Song_Contest_2013#Semifinal_2. I was hoping that I'd find enough to merit creating an article for the group and then redirecting to that page, but I can't find enough to show that they merit that. Their one big claim to fame was performing in Eurovision, but they only performed in the second semifinal. This is essentially "round 1" since the two semifinals were both to whittle down two separate piles of people to move on to "round 2", the finals. Their performance on Eurovision wasn't particularly stunning, in that they didn't place in the top 3 or even the top 5. They were in 10th place and did not progress. At most they should redirect to the article above, but they don't merit their own article at this point in time. Of the sources on the article, none of them really work as RS to show notability. None of the other contests are the sort that give notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:44, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 08:00, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —SpacemanSpiff 05:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:22, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Foster high school band

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

Since notability is at least minimally suggested I did not go for CSD, but I think it's quite clear this is nn. Sulfurboy (talk) 05:33, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete A high school band would not normally be notable. About all there seems to be to say in this case is that it's a good band. BayShrimp (talk) 06:10, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable and unreferenced. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 10:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment. If sourcing is available, the band might be worth a mention in the school's article at John and Randolph Foster High School, which is a stub. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Merge into the school's article--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 02:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Delete unless references can be added, then merge with school. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 16:12, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Merge into the school's article. (Note: I've done a bit of cleanup here and it does have a couple of useful sources but readers would be better served with a merge to the school article and a redirect to same. - Dravecky (talk) 20:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Adam Croft

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

I don't think he's a notable author. He fails the basic test that his works are listed by library databases. Only one is, and it lists To Close for Comfort as being in a single library. He's a self-published author, and claims to be notable as such, and also claims to be notable for showing that a self published author can be notable. It's true that a very few have been. It's not true that he's one of them.

The current version of the article was written or revised entirely by a known paid sock-puppetting editor; I don;t know who wrote the earlier versions, but they are also not salvageable, because there's no fundamental notable to be salvaged. The promotional manner of the writing is what you;d expect--it contains what the subject wants to say about himself. If I am wrong, and he actually is notable, the article would still have to be rewritten entirely, by someone who knows and respects our standards. DGG ( talk ) 04:17, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete / WP:BLOWITUP - what a horrible mess. The "sources" include blogs, user profiles (created by the subject) and the barest of passing mentions. With those removed we have a series of articles (from reliable sources) but most of those are coverage by the subject (of the self-publishing industry) rather than coverage of the subject. Lots of quotes from him, not a lot about him. There's a feint chance the subject might be notable but the article is a horrific jumble of promo-spam and dishonest referencing masquerading as solid, verfiable content. Stalwart111 05:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Comment: I've cleaned the article up and removed all of the blatantly unusable sources. Everything I removed was either an unusable blog, a primary source, or a merchant link. The original version can be seen here. If DGG didn't already say that this was by a suspected sockpuppet and confirmed paid editor, I'd have suspected that this was a case of paid editing. I'll see what I can find, but offhand it doesn't look spectacular. Most of his coverage is local and therefore depreciated, since it's in their best interests to portray a local citizen in a more positive light in these circumstances. The Guardian link is good, but he's not the focus of the article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:27, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Delete. When it comes to coverage that actually focuses on Croft, all we have are local sources. I always view those with suspicion since those don't always do the best fact checking when it comes to coverage, as it wouldn't behoove them to say something negative about something seemingly good that a native did. The Guardian article doesn't have Croft as the focus of the article, which is about self-publishing in general. As for the claims of selling well, that doesn't guarantee notability- it just makes it more likely that you'll get coverage. I was hoping to find more coverage due to the radio play, but there's nothing out there about it and it seems like it's one of many radio plays that get made and sink into obscurity. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:37, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Delete. Almost no sign of notability, the Guardian mention being useful but slight. The sockpuppetry and paid editing are distasteful aspects; presumably other articles such as Danielle Nierenberg are similar (many refs of doubtful quality). Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:35, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete - fails all our tests. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:33, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Delete -- Unless self-published works have achieved significant sales they are NN. It follws that their author is also NN (unless for other reasons). Peterkingiron (talk) 13:25, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

The result was Delete. Mr.Z-man 04:33, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Team Rhodes Scholars

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

Appears to fail WP:Notability (people/entertainer) and WP:Notability (sports). No independent coverage explaining how this is significant or how this less-than-one-year wrestling team has contributed in a substantial or 'unique, prolific or innovative' manner. Moreover, content is already on both Rhodes and Sandow articles. Qwerty Binary (talk) 04:13, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete per OP. Existing isn't enough to warrant an article, and this tag team did nothing of note. — Richard BB 20:19, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Delete Notability problems haven't gotten any better since it was tagged in March. Also doesn't help that the tag team was relatively short lived never did anything worth writing home about.LM2000 (talk) 23:31, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Delete - I guess the pair two mid-carders together technique, did not work this time around for WWE. A very short lived team that did nothing significant. STATic message me! 02:02, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Bruce Temkin

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

Nothing here appears to be notable, & everything appears to be promotional. Like some other articles I've proposed for deletion in the last day, the article was written by a known paid sock-puppetting editor, and I think the combination of borderline notability and promotionalism makes a case for deletion. So do many of the specifics: Many things are asserted, but I think none of them amount to notability.

The inclusion in the lede and infobox of claimed notability in a large number of occupations including the rather ill-defined ones of professional speaker, analyst and consultant is in my experience an almost sure sign of promotionalism. He has experience working as vice-president in a notable consultant firm, and the article claims he developed two of their indexes. Unfortunately, the evidence of this consists entirely of promotional press releases where he writes for a conference program or an interview what he says he has done. The references are entirely press releases or his own articles.

Possibly, just possibly, he is notable. I don't want to actually deny it on the basis of what I consider utterly incompetent work by a COI editor apparently ignorant or indifferent to what we consider reliable sources. The evidence would need to be gathered by a NPOV editor capable of presenting it properly, and the article written from scratch. The current article will be of no help. DGG ( talk ) 04:10, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Strong Delete There is nothing in the article including references which indicate he is notable. The article is advert. The article communicates that he is a very busy individual who is well known in the Customer experience and IT customer research world, but no single source indicates notability. As a Software Architect I have followed Forrester and Gartner's advice for over 2 decades, and I can tell you it's the advice not the speaker that important. It is one giant puff piece. It fails WP:BIO and WP:ADVERT. scope_creep talk 23:30 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Delete As per DGG and Scope_creep .The article is a clearly paid Advert to promote the subject and as noted above by scope and none of the sources indicate notability and it fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:46, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Delete promotional article failing WP:BASIC and WP:AUTHOR. Logical Cowboy (talk) 20:52, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Delete; low notability and promotional content. Even if somebody conjured up high-quality sources tomorrow which showed a higher level of notability, the article would still have to be rewritten from zero... bobrayner (talk) 22:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Paolo Aritola

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:NOTDIARY#NOTDIARY Sulfurboy (talk) 04:07, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete: Not notable per WP:NOTABILITY. Only reference is his own blog and confirmation that he does, indeed, work for Teach For America. Alphachimera (talk) 19:33, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Delete looks like an WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY or WP:HOAX or some combination. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 03:43, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. It is abundantly clear that that this isn't appropriate article content. WP:SNOW. -- Ed (Edgar181) 23:12, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Ape is a Punished Man

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

An original theory essay, it is inappropriate for Knowledge per WP:NOTESSAY. (Please note that it is incomplete in its current form; I had to remove a large chunk for WP:COPYVIO reason.) Nat Gertler (talk) 04:05, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete per nom; original research essay, as suggested by the title. I seconded the prod, and figured the trip to AfD was inevitable. JNW (talk) 04:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Delete; it's an essay, and not the good kind of essay, and it has no place here. I can't put it better than Nat Gertler. bobrayner (talk) 04:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Delete per nom and per WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 05:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Delete for all the above reasons, plus being unverifiable. But this sounds like a great name for band! I call dibs. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:03, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Delete Respected Nat Gertler got it completely right, not salvageable. Snow seems to be in the air. --Randykitty (talk) 12:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Knowledge doesn't host essays. --NeilN 15:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Delete per Knowledge:NOTESSAY. This is an essay, and is original research. Lugia2453 (talk) 22:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Delete per Knowledge:NOTESSAY. -- 101.119.14.213 (talk) 04:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Copy + pest of Article’s talk page

Note: User:Nannadeem, who appears to be the editor who originally pasted this material into the AfD discussion, appears to be a novice to the ways of AfD. The pasting of this material appears to be a blatant keep !vote, and should be kept in here in order to reflect both that stance and his arguments for it, particularly given the lack of other editors advancing that stance, both for the argument it makes and for keeping that article in public view should the article be ultimately deleted. I have removed from his pasting my own responses that were on the talk page, which are not needed to assert his views. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:47, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

would pose the partiality of  WP administrators dealing with Article’s engineered deletion -

Article Ape is a Punished Man is not an original theory rather it is a collection of facts already available on social and print media. Article shows its sources properly. Watching this information on WP would make it a tool in an encyclopedic nutshell. Therefore, it shall not harm to WP, instead this will establish neutrality of WP.

Format style should not be a criteria for deletion purpose. Its style beautification is requested so as to make it more attractive for comprehension and reference for both side's readers i.e. evolutionist and creationist based on religion. Writer has his firm belief in Science and states in personal capacity that "it is not a religion, in fact, which contradicts fundamentals of Science". Nannadeem (talk) 06:26, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Having been Hurt

Respected Admin. Thanks for your criticism on my Article. I have improved the contents of paragraph in light of your pointing and deleted un-necessary phrase (s). The purpose of human fossil ref was to show existence of man. However, it is just a claim like other fossils discovery and not a law.

Your deletion of chromosomal contents from Chromosomal Discussion Section is highly regretted, as these were free and there is no question of copy right violation. See their general permission. It appears that it is a calculated design to make the Article unacceptable. Having been hurt, I thank you Sir/Ms.

Of course, man is the finest of all creations with reference to energy, matter and livings things. If you suggest something else, then please guide me.

In response to your point for my substantial belief in the theory, it is submitted that belief concerns to truth not to theory, e.g. there was my grandfather and his grandfather…, inspite the fact that I have not seen, but it is my belief that he/they was/were. When a hypothesis has been proved by consistent results of many experiments, then it becomes a theory. A good theory tends to explain the broad facts or generalization.

As we all cannot make a man from ape or an ape from man so all discussion on both the concepts would remain theories in the broad sense. So for the subject of man’s punishment and its transformation to an ape has route concept as Darwin also gave similar example and in his book “the Origin of Species” for instance, said that some bears going into water to find food transformed themselves into whales. Ref. P.184, Ist Ed. Harvard University Press, 1964.

In view of my above submission, I request you to please do not submit this Article for deletion and remove your PROD template. I would welcome your further instructions for improvement of my Article. Thanks again.Nannadeem (talk) 22:00, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

You are free to remove the PROD yourself, as any editor is (and as you probably should, as you clearly contest it.) However, I will indeed list the articles at Articles For Deletion, which does not mean that the article will be automatically deleted. Rather, it opens a discussion on whether the article should be deleted, one which other members of the community are free to join in.

As for the question of copyright infringement, there is a clear claim of copyright on the source of the text. While that page does make a statement allowing for free use under certain conditions, those conditions are outside of those acceptable to Knowledge (most obviously, the condition that "alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden"; you can see the conflict with this at Knowledge:Donating copyrighted materials.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.157.165.239 (talk)

Replies from editor/user Nannadeem (talk) 21:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC) Unverifiable – it is just a blame. We all know that man’s common ancestor is till disputed and link has since long been traced by evolutionists.

What is an Essay? Could not you all admins give its skeleton, so that I could be able in avoiding such Style for my future editing on WP.

The concept of transformation from animal to animal had already been mentioned by respected Darwin himself for detail, please see contents of Article’s talk page. What a criteria of intellects, please see yourself/selves. Evolutionist’s view is being promoted while view point of naturalist on WP is being denied. Is not this established partiality on WP’s neutrality. This is not the fault of WP itself, but it is an accumulated credit which needs to be distributed amongst admins just endorsing the delete, delete as a fashion.

Religion based references have been placed, thus Article cannot be termed as un-sourced, derived from print media, URLs.

See the universal truth: Nothing is new and cannot be new, the things which we mark as new, in fact is a combination of things already existed (plz recall matter & energy neither can be created nor destroyed). So am not a creator, so blame of original research may please be reviewed. After this written speech, I request all of you to insert “keep” in place of delete. Thanks again and again.Nannadeem (talk) 21:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Danielle Vanzura

The result was speedy delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) 01:30, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Flash Flash Revolution (Online game)

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

Fails WP:NVG Sulfurboy (talk) 03:46, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Still a working progress. It took weeks for me to piece together the Major League Gaming article to make it more user friendly, so I obviously expect the FFR article to take just as long - if not longer. Can I get a 30- 60- 90-day deadline to improve the FFR article before final vote for deletion? Thanks! Treyvo (talk) 03:58, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

It's not a matter of user friendliness. It's a matter of notability. Articles need to demonstrate that they've received attention from reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:45, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

One option for you Treyvo, if the consensus is to delete the article, is for you to request Knowledge:Userfication for it, allowing you to work on it in your talk page space.Dialectric (talk) 11:51, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 11:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 11:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Speedy delete recreation of deleted material. Deleted many times at title Flash Flash Revolution, which is now protected. For what it's worth, also not notable, etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:46, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Comment - I would decline a speedy deletion if nominated because the current article is vastly different to the version deleted in the AfD 6 years ago. Let this stand the test of a fresh AfD. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

The Wikiproject Videogame custom Google search shows just one page of results, and they seem to just be forum results. Dream Focus 16:07, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete software article lacking RS references to establish notability. A search did not find any reliable source coverage, just sites to play the game and user editable sites / forums.Dialectric (talk) 11:49, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:30, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Aalias

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC. Originally PROD'd for this reason, but the PROD was removed without explanation by an IP, likely the author/subject logged out. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:42, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:34, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:34, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete I couldn't find anything to suggest this person was notable (or known as Aalias)-- 🍺 Antiqueight 12:39, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete - Fails WP:NMUSIC, possible parts of the article are hoax as well. ///EuroCarGT 02:23, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 17:06, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Doug Lipp

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

Highly promotional article for borderline notable writer. His best known book, Danger and opportunity is held in 125 libraries according to WorldCat. Many other things are asserted also , but I think none of them amount to notability. None of the positions are significant; almost all of the sources are promotional. The article was written mostly or entirely by a known paid sock-puppetting editor, and I think the combination of borderline notability and promotionalism makes a case for deletion.

The inclusion in the lede and infobox of claimed notability in a large number of occupations including the rather ill-defined one of professional speaker is in my experience an almost sure sign of promotionalism, especially when accompanied by author and consultant. None of this belongs in an encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 02:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment. He seems to significantly figure in a few of the reliable sources offered. Couldn't the article just be rewritten? I skimmed through a dozen of the sources, and quite a few of them struck me as promotional nonsense, but there were a few that seemed legitimate, such as the NYT piece on the Jersey Shore. I'm not necessarily volunteering to do it, but it seems surmountable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:32, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:32, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:32, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Keep per WP:AUTHOR #3 multiple book reviews, and WP:GNG significant coverage over a long period of time in reliable sources.

Book reviews:

Lauren Simonds. "Deliver a World-Class Customer Experience", Time magazine, May 15, 2013
Claudia Buck. "How Disney gets its ‘hi-ho’ enthusiasm from workers", The News Tribune, April 7, 2013
Ray Bert. "Disney U: How Disney University Develops the World's Most Engaged, Loyal, and Customer-Centric Employees." Civil Engineering (08857024). May2013, Vol. 83 Issue 5, p80-80.
Terri Schlichenmyer. "'Disney U' offers more stories than advice", Arizona Daily Sun, April 28, 2013
"‘Disney U’ provides lessons for any business", The Sacramento Bee, April 15, 2013
Greg Hack. "The Bookshelf", Kansas City Star, February 3, 2004 (book review, The Changing Face of Today's Customer)

Speaking reviews and other significant coverage:

Rhonda Bodfield. "Ex-Disney exec warns of trap in down times", Arizona Daily Star, September 10, 2011
John Curran. "Former Disney Exec Gives Shore Workers Friendly Advice", Associated Press, June 14, 2005
Cathleen Ferraro. "Rare care - Expert says it's easy to improve service", The Sacramento Bee, December 22, 2001
Michael Heenan. "Spanning a Wide Cultural Gap", Sunday Union, December 2, 1990.
Michael Strob. "Bridging the Culture Gap", Sacramento Bee, February 20, 1998.
"Smoothing Out Cultural Misunderstandings", Training Magazine, October 1992.
Tim O'Brien. "Customer Service Killers: Know Them and Avoid Them", Amusement Business, December 4-10, 1995

Otherwise, the article is indeed a classic WP:PUFF by a paid editor full of junk sourcing. That shouldn't prejudice to deletion if there are enough reliable sources to build an article, as NinjaRobotPirate says. Funny how the paid sock missed most of the best sources many of which are available through the subject's own website (pdf's of newspaper scans). The whole article needs to be WP:TNT from ground up using reliable secondary sources such as these. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Keep. I agree with most of what DGG says in the nom, but GC has unearthed some pretty compelling evidence of notability, which brings me to the conclusion that this article is indeed salvageable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:45, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Weak Keep. (sigh) Despite the promotional character of this article, and the fact that it may be a paid promotional article, the fact is that the subject of this article does appear to meet the notability guidelines. If a convincing argument can be made to the contrary I'm certainly open to it. Coretheapple (talk) 00:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Shannara. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:41, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Paranor

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

This does not establish notability independent of Shannara through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Information present based on primary or in-universe sources, and is better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. N2e (talk) 01:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Redirect to Shannara. I don't see any significant coverage, as required by the WP:GNG. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:54, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Redirect Ed 17:58, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Redirect, but not to Shannara, as it's not mentioned there. I think the best target available is The Four Lands, where it's at least shown on a map. --BDD (talk) 23:59, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 23:59, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

List of television duopolies in the United States

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

Non-notable indiscriminate list lacking any reliable sources as well as significant coverage. Wouldn't encourage starting List of television triopolies or quadropolies either. -- Wikipedical (talk) 00:55, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 09:06, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 09:06, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 22 October 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) 01:08, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete. Fall afoul of WP:IINFO. I don't see how this is a notable, encyclopedic topic. The complete lack of sources in the article doesn't help to establish any sense of notability, either. The topic itself gets fair coverage on Google News, but I don't see anyone discussing the concept as a group. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:03, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Delete Agreed about IINFO, and that the articles for individual station groups and Duopoly (broadcasting) deal with this concept better than this List of article. Also no real lede or description for anyone clicking Random. Nate • (chatter) 03:06, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:45, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Shoo Rayner

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

Notability: Despite being tagged 18 months ago, no real references have been produced: two links are to sites set up by Rayner, one is dead and the McDonald's link doesn't mention him. The one site which carries an interview with him is too thin Leutha (talk) 09:56, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 October 13. —cyberbot I _Online 10:07, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 12:27, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 12:27, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete. Total absence of evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:26, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Keep Author of 150+ children's books. G&H says he is "popular" and "critically acclaimed". 6.5 million of his books were given away in Happy Meals. Listed on many government reading lists for younger readers, for example: -- Green Cardamom (talk) 07:33, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Keep per Green Cardamom, especially the Gazzette and Herald piece. Seems to have received significant coverage. --Cerebellum (talk) 01:16, 20 October 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) 02:01, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources stating that this is a significant author. Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:51, 21 October 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) 01:06, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Keep as per Green Cardamom. scope_creep talk 20:43 28 October 2013 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 00:02, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Lee Fang

AfDs for this article:

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

All sources are not third party, trivial or indirect coverage of subject. Not notable. Loomspicker (talk) 11:48, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 12:37, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 12:38, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 12:38, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete Fails WP:BASIC, they are all quoting his blog posts or bios by news organisations. Fails WP:ANYBIO as well, which is not necessary, but helps.2Awwsome 13:00, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Keep: Per WP:SIGCOV The subject is the source for a good number of other journalists and reputable sources, such as NPR, MSNBC, etc., and he does count as a expert under notability standards of WP:Author: "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." I have added some sources for traditional, non-partisan media. His articles have attracted widespread attention among the political press and not for just one event. I disagree that he fails to meet WP:BASIC both on the number of citations and the fact that the policy allows for primary sources if notability does not hang on them, which is the case here. Enough secondary sources do discuss his reporting. Moreover, if you include coverage from the U.S. alternative press on both the right and the left, then the source without a doubt has been given enough coverage. Crtew (talk) 19:04, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Looks not much different from before, which of the new sources you added make the subject notable?--Loomspicker (talk) 21:01, 16 October 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) 02:01, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete Too soon. There is not even an article on the publication that employs him. He seems only to be mentioned in passing in the cited articles. Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Keep:Cited in NY TImes and the Washington Post and widely published in progressive media such as truthout, alternet and thenation robkall —Preceding undated comment added 04:10, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

The first article you cited is about Michael Goldfarb and the second is an opinion column. Both cover Fang only in passing. Have you found any articles covering him substantially? Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:06, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Whether it's an opinion column or not, what does that have to do with notability? I believe you may be confusing the standard for reliability with the standard for notability. Loonymonkey (talk) 22:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Keep The article was listed here without citing one of the valid reasons for deletion and, as yet, no editors have provided one (other than a vague "not notable" which fails scrutiny, given the number of reliable sources that have referred to the subject). --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:06, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Can you provide the sources that provide substantial coverage in reliable independent sources? I wasn't able to find any and this is a valid reason for deletion. Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:15, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Are you looking at the same article? Looking at the refs, he writes for several notable publications, his articles have been written about by many notable publications and he himself is often mentioned in articles about his work. Sure, he's no celebrity, but that's never been our standard for notability. On its face, this AfD seems to be without merit. Loonymonkey (talk) 22:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think passing mentions are enough. But we will see what others think. Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:42, 24 October 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) 01:05, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Keep per Crtew. Fang's work has received significant coverage, deletion would accomplish nothing. --HectorMoffet (talk) 03:06, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:18, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Eurolines Coach route 890

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

Non notable route fails GNG, Perhaps merge/redirect would be best? -Davey2010T 18:28, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 22 October 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) 01:00, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete We don't normally have articles on individual bus or coach routes. There's no evidence that this is notable or anything out of the ordinary, with the article making no claim for special significance. A Google search doesn't show any results for this to be notable either. Knowledge is not a directory or timetable. For the same reason, it shouldn't be merged. I don't see any value in a redirect: better to let people go to the official website where the timetable will be up to date. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:59, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:44, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Andaleeve Rahman

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

Andaleeve Rahman Partho article fails WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN. The article was created by a potential sockpuppet: User:BangladeshWiki. Other aspects: Andaleeve Rahman is president of Bangladesh Jatiya Party – BJP which is minor Bangladesh political party, only having a single seat in parliament. scope_creep talk 20:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Keep. Passes WP:POLITICIAN as a member of a national parliament. That his party has only one seat in parliament is irrelevant. • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 22 October 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) 00:57, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Keep. Any member of a national parliament is obviously notable by WP:POLITICIAN. No new content has been added to the article since it was nominated for deletion; I have to wonder how carefully the nominator read the article. Nyttend (talk) 03:28, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Keep. Passes WP:POLITICIAN. Subject is a member of Bangladesh Parliament. Perhaps there was no need to re-list.--Vigyani_talk 10:25, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

The result was keep. No prejudice towards a merge discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:42, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Zack Martin

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

Non-notable Disney fancruft. Taylor Trescott - + _{my edits} 01:00, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Keep - The character is a primary character in two televison series that spanned 158 episodes and a TV movie, as well as having appeeared in crossover episodes of other TV shows. The character is clearly notable, the article just lacks some appropriate referencing but AfD is not for cleanup. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:52, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
For fictional characters, appearing in something notable is not enough. They must have sources to establish their notability outside of the media they are from. Taylor Trescott - + _{my edits} 15:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

It's the characters that make the program notable. Take the character away and you have a program that wouldn't even get to pilot stage. In the case of this character, the series wouldn't even have a title, because this character is one of the title characters. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Merge to List of recurring characters in The Suite Life of Zack & Cody. Not clear indication of notability of character: although it's common to have articles on main characters from long-running shows, they're not automatically notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think the merge destination you've suggested is quite right for Zack. However, if keeping the article and attempting to rescue it are not feasible, I do believe it's appropriate to merge to a "list of" article (and do better than my botched stupidhead attempt at it). - Purplewowies (talk) 21:28, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
  - No, the merge destination is definitely not appropriate. Zack Martin was a lead character in two series (Title character in The Suite Life of Zack & Cody and lead character in The Suite Life on Deck), not simply a recurring character, --AussieLegend (✉) 03:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

You might have to rename the target, but covering main and recurring characters in the same article is better than creating a separate article for main characters (unless the result would be unnecessarily long). Since ...On Deck was a spin-off/continuation of the original series, with many of the same characters, treating both together is justified (in contrast, something like Frasier which has an almost entirely different cast is better separate from Cheers). --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:17, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

The two series were different and have two sets of articles as a result. Both List of recurring characters in The Suite Life of Zack & Cody and List of recurring characters in The Suite Life on Deck exist. Combining them would result in an excessively long and confusing article. Several of the characters crossed between the two series but I wouldn't say "many". The Suite Life on Deck had its own characters and characters that crossed from The Suite Life of Zack & Cody to The Suite Life on Deck (none crossed the other way obviously) did so generally for only one, sometimes two, episodes. And, of course, who would merge them. It's a big job. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:58, 28 October 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) 00:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Merge to List of recurring characters in The Suite Life of Zack & Cody or create new list for main cast. The character does not have significant coverage as required by the WP:GNG. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:17, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

While sources are lacking now, this is because both series have ended and the sources are now dead. At the time the series' were in production, there were plenty available. The keep votes reflect WP:NTEMP. Deletion would require a new article, as the character was a main character in two series. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you understand the criteria for notability. Someone has to write an article about the character. It doesn't matter if that article was written 50 years ago, 5 years ago, or a day ago. Examples of articles that would count as establishing notability would something like you see in Keyser Söze, Rorschach (comics), or Frasier Crane. Note how these character have a Reception section, where professional critics rank the character in "top ten" style lists, proclaim him to the best character ever, or otherwise give some kind of opinion. Note how Keyser Söze has an entire chapter in a book, a scholarly essay, and multiple articles in magazines dedicated to him. Rorschach changed how comic book characters are written. Frasier Crane, well, he was a pretty popular sitcom character. What has this character done to warrant coverage in Knowledge? Where are the scholarly essays, the chapters in books, the magazine articles? Provide some. Then we'll keep the character. If you can't, then he's not notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:22, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:GNG requires that subjects have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. As I indicated, online sources existed while the series' were airing that clearly established notability. Unfortunately, more than to years after The Suite Life on Deck finished airing, these sources have disappeared as often happens. (Try finding sources for Frasier Crane these days) That doesn't mean the character is no longer notable. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:48, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Uh, there are dozens of sources for Frasier Crane in the Frasier Crane article. Same thing for the others that I listed. You can use archive.org to access them if they are no longer working. This is no defense at all. I personally dug up dozens of references for Kesyer Soze, and he dates back to a 1995 film, before most of these actors were even born. I have personally added dozens of sources to fictional characters introduced in the 1970s. I don't see how you can possibly make this argument. It's stunningly easy to locate sources on the internet. Of course, if the character isn't notable, it becomes significantly more difficult... NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:05, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Try looking online is what I was getting at. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Using archive.org requires that the refs be in the article to start with and these articles suffer from a distinct lack of sources, but that doesn't mean the character wasn't notable. This one was one of the two title characters for the series. Without them we'd have "The Suite Life of and". --AussieLegend (✉) 15:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I fully understand what you're getting at, and I categorically reject it. I'm repeating myself here: I personally added over two dozen sources to Keyser Söze, and that character is 18 years old – older than most internet sites. It was still trivially easy. The vast majority of sources in Frasier Crane were added by editors in 2012, long after the character's last appearance (almost ten years). If you're having this much trouble locating sources for this character, it's because he's not notable. Notability is not inherited, so it doesn't matter if he was one of the title characters. I think I've said everything I have to say on this matter, and I'm getting tired of repeating myself. Notability is established through independent third-party reliable sources, and, if the character is notable, it doesn't matter how old it is. The sources will be easy to locate. If you can't find it on Google, then try a library. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:46, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Keep - per my comments here..--Stemoc (talk) 11:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Speedy Keep per AussieLegend - The character is notable, AFD'ing a page per WP:IDONTLIKEIT is bad faith! ..... →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 15:11, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Keep Articles on primary characters in major shows are not fancruft-- a word which properly refers to extensive details about unimportant characters or unimportant plot elements. Of course, to those who think the entire underlying subject trivial, everything may appear as fancruft. I myself couldn't care less, but I don;t impose that on other people. DGG ( talk ) 01:18, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

The result was keep. No prejudice towards a merge discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:42, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Cody Martin

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

Non-notable fancruft. Taylor Trescott - + _{my edits} 01:01, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Keep - The character is a primary character in two televison series that spanned 158 episodes and a TV movie, as well as having appeeared in crossover episodes of other TV shows. The character is clearly notable, the article just lacks some appropriate referencing but AfD is not for cleanup. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:52, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
For fictional characters, appearing in something notable is not enough. They must have sources to establish their notability outside of the media they are from. Taylor Trescott - + _{my edits} 15:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Keep if at all possible. If keeping the article and attempting to rescue it are not feasible, merge to a "list of" article (and do better than my botched stupidhead attempt at it). (Additional note: I will be pasting this message to other discussions opened on TSL/OD characters, and I'll mean it on every one.) - Purplewowies (talk) 21:24, 21 October 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) 00:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Merge to List of recurring characters in The Suite Life of Zack & Cody or create new list for main cast. The character does not have significant coverage as required by the WP:GNG. All I see are WP:ILIKEIT arguments from fans. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:22, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Keep - per my comments here..--Stemoc (talk) 11:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Speedy Keep per AussieLegend - The character is notable, AFD'ing a page per WP:IDONTLIKEIT is bad faith! ..... →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 15:11, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Keep or perhaps merge, but in any case retain the information based on what is now available. DGG ( talk ) 01:15, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

The result was keep. No prejudice towards a merge discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:42, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Carey Martin

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

Non-notable fancruft. Taylor Trescott - + _{my edits} 01:02, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Keep - The character is a major character in a televison series that spanned 87 episodes and has had a significant role in another. The character is clearly notable, the article just lacks some appropriate referencing but AfD is not for cleanup. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:51, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
For fictional characters, appearing in something notable is not enough. They must have sources to establish their notability outside of the media they are from. Taylor Trescott - + _{my edits} 15:06, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

It's the characters that make the program notable. Take the character away and you have a program that wouldn't even get to pilot stage. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:43, 21 October 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) 00:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Merge to List of recurring characters in The Suite Life of Zack & Cody or create new list for main cast. The character does not have significant coverage as required by the WP:GNG. Even fewer hits on Google News than the others. I don't see any indication that these characters are notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:25, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

While sources are lacking now, this is because both series have ended and the sources are now dead. At the time the series' were in production, there were plenty available. The keep votes reflect WP:NTEMP. Deletion would require a new list, as the character appeared in two different series. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:10, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Speedy Keep per AussieLegend - The character is notable, AFD'ing a page per WP:IDONTLIKEIT is bad faith! ..... →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 15:11, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Keep or perhaps merge if there is a problem with the sources--no point n losing the material we do have. DGG ( talk ) 01:15, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

The result was keep. No prejudice towards a merge discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:43, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Bailey Pickett

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

Non-notable fancruft. Taylor Trescott - + _{my edits} 01:03, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Keep - The character is a major character in a televison series that spanned 71 episodes and and a TV movie, as well as having appeeared in crossover episodes of other TV shows. The character is clearly notable, the article just lacks some appropriate referencing but AfD is not for cleanup. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:55, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
For fictional characters, appearing in something notable is not enough. They must have sources to establish their notability outside of the media they are from. Taylor Trescott - + _{my edits} 15:06, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

It's the characters that make the program notable. Take the character away and you have a program that wouldn't even get to pilot stage. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:42, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Keep if at all possible. If keeping the article and attempting to rescue it are not feasible, merge to a "list of" article (and do better than my botched stupidhead attempt at it). (Additional note: I will be pasting this message to other discussions opened on TSL/OD characters, and I'll mean it on every one.) - Purplewowies (talk) 21:32, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Keep Major Character with a lot of following and coverage on all media. Passes WP:GNG. --Nlfestival (talk) 00:07, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Where is this "coverage" and how does it pass GNG if there are no sources? Taylor Trescott - + _{my edits} 00:08, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The sources don't have to be in the article for the subject to meet GNG. Subjects should actually meet GNG before the article is even created. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

So where are the sources? Taylor Trescott - + _{my edits} 11:06, 23 October 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) 00:50, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Merge to List of recurring characters in The Suite Life on Deck or create new list for main cast. Alleged notability and sources seem greatly exaggerated. I see no evidence of notability or coverage for any of these characters, and they all seem to fail the WP:GNG. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:33, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

While sources are lacking now, this is because both series have ended and the sources are now dead. At the time the series' were in production, there were plenty available. The keep votes reflect WP:NTEMP. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:NTEMP applies to something that was notable in the first place. This fancrufty plot recap doesn't establish notability at all. If there are sources, find them. Taylor Trescott - + _{my edits} 11:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

There are lots of articles on Knowledge about notable subjects that don't establish notability. WP:NRV actually says "The absence of citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that the subject is not notable.". As I've already noted, because it's something that comes up in AfDs often, AfD is not for cleanup. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:57, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Other crap exists. This is the type of article that needs sources to establish notability, since it's been proven time and time again that fictional characters merely appearing in a notable work of fiction is not enough to establish notability. Taylor Trescott - + _{my edits} 12:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

This is a case where notability could have and should have been established while the series was airing but now, 17 months after the series has ended, the online sources establishing notability have understandably gone dead. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't believe there were a large number of sources discussing this character that have all been deleted in the past 17 months. Many entertainment news sources keep their archives online for several years: AV Club and Digital Spy archives go back 10 years, TMZ goes back at least to 2007, LA Times to the 1980s, Television Without Pity to early 2000s, many newspapers to 2000 or earlier, etc. Google Books goes back considerably further. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

To be fair, though, it's quite possible sources could have existed then that don't exist now. Dylan and Cole Sprouse, which is a WP:GA, has 20 percent of its sources archived, and most of those now-dead links are from the years the series aired (and sometimes about the series). - Purplewowies (talk) 18:38, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Keep - per my comments here..--Stemoc (talk) 11:13, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Speedy Keep per AussieLegend - The character is notable, AFD'ing a page per WP:IDONTLIKEIT is bad faith! ..... →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 15:12, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Keep We will have this sort of a problem with internet based sources, and the only partial solution is to archive while we can, to the extent permitted. Meanwhile, I;'d extend the benefit of the doubt. DGG ( talk ) 00:30, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:43, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Mike Ghouse

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

Many things are asserted, but I think none of them amount to notability. None of the awards are significant; almost all of the sources are promotional. The article was written mostly or entirely by a known paid sock-puppetting editor.

The inclusion in the lede and infobox of claimed notability in a large number of occupations including the rather ill-defined one of professional speaker is in my experience an almost sure sign of promotionalism. The further content is essentially what he chooses to say about himself and his interests. None of this belongs in an encyclopedia.

I think the combination of borderline notability and promotionalism makes a case for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 00:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete for the reasons User:DGG details. I actually thought I had nominated this already. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:53, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Keep According to this article, Mike Ghouse had been under consideration by the Obama administration for appointment as special envoy to the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) a major honor. He didn't get the post. I know about INHERIT the point being this is on first glance not a huckster preacher. As for sources Ghouse has been often quoted in the Indian press. He has made many appearances in mainstream media (one example from Fox News and others) as an expert guest on religious pluralism. I agree the article is puffed up by a professional PR firm and should be torn down and rebuilt using reliable sources available. Like sources available at the Washington Post. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Delete As per DGG , WP:TNT , WP:ADVERT and WP:SPIP. This article is clearly a paid advertisement and promotion for his work with the biography acting as nothing but a WP:COATRACK. Most of the content appears to come straight from his CV.The Subject generates WP:Ghits and this includes the mainstream media but that does not the subject notable by default .The article needs to be torn down.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:51, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Delete per nom and WP:COATRACK. Logical Cowboy (talk) 00:40, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Delete. Should anybody find stronger sources, WP:TNT is still the best way forward. bobrayner (talk) 22:30, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

The result was keep. No prejudice towards a merge discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:44, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Mr. Moseby

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

Non-notable fancruft. Taylor Trescott - + _{my edits} 01:04, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Keep - Trescott (Personal attack removed) has nommed all the major characters of a hit DISNEY show.--Stemoc (talk) 03:30, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- Please refrain from personal attacks. Comment on the nomination, not the nominator. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Keep - The character is a major character in two televison series that spanned 158 episodes and a TV movie, as well as having appeeared in crossover episodes of other TV shows. The character is clearly notable, the article just lacks some appropriate referencing but AfD is not for cleanup. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:48, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
For fictional characters, appearing in something notable is not enough. They must have sources to establish their notability outside of the media they are from. Taylor Trescott - + _{my edits} 15:05, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

It's the characters that make the program notable. Take the character away and you have a program that wouldn't even get to pilot stage. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:48, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

not a fan of people who nom things without thinking it through.....Trescott, take this to RfC. What you have chosen to do will affect 1000's of wikipedia articles. You cannot just nom character pages for deletion willy nilly..This needs discussion and I honestly do not see how Fancruft is a valid reason here....and this applies to ALL the pages you nommed in relation to character pages.--Stemoc (talk) 13:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

My simplest reaction to all articles involved in this multi-page discussion is "keep if at all possible." But for Moseby specifically, I feel as if perhaps he is notable outside the series (I have not looked yet and may not have the time to do so, but I'm fairly sure he's been notable.) However, if keeping the article and attempting to rescue it are not feasible, merge to a "list of" article (and do better than my botched stupidhead attempt at it). - Purplewowies (talk) 21:39, 21 October 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) 00:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Merge into List of recurring characters in The Suite Life of Zack & Cody or create new list for main cast. Like the rest, this character fails the WP:GNG, as he does not seem to have significant coverage by independent reliable sources. The keep votes seem to be nothing more than WP:ILIKEIT. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:45, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

While sources are lacking now, this is because both series have ended and the sources are now dead. At the time the series' were in production, there were plenty available. The keep votes are not cases of WP:ILIKEIT, they reflect WP:NTEMP. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:08, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Please demonstrate those sources then. It's a relatively new series so you should be able to find at least citations to them on the Internet. --MASEM (t) 02:18, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

"It" is not a relatively new series. There are two different series. The Suite Life of Zack & Cody ended over five years ago and The Suite Life on Deck ended more than two years ago. The nature of websites these days is that links seem to be going dead more quickly than they did a few days ago, so it's very difficult to find online sources for programs that have ended, especially when they're programs aged at young viewers, and consequently don't have as large an ongoing appeal. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

The fact that Trescott also nommed the MAJOR characters of the show including Zack Martin and Cody Martin makes this nomination "moot" so no, i agree with Aussie, these are major characters and the fact that even Mr. Moseby is part of not one but 2 television series. Trescott is probably getting personal here and it would be best to speedy close this as neither of these 6 characters are "recurring", they are ALL the MAIN CAST in The Suite Life of Zack and Cody. They appeared/credited in in ALL 87 episodes

- Zack Martin
- Cody Martin
- Mr. Moseby
- London Tipton
- Maddie Fitzpatrick (full cast member on The Suite Life of Zack and Cody/recurring on The Suite Life on Deck)
- Carey Martin (full cast member of The Suite Life of Zack and Cody/recurring on on The Suite Life on Deck)
- Bailey Pickett (full cast member on The Suite Life on Deck)

It would be insane to delete legitimate characters of a HIT TV show, The Suite Life of Zack and Cody was Nominated for 3 Primetime Emmys and won another 9 awards & were nominated 18 times. The Suite Life on Deck won 5 awards and were nominated for 5 other awards. Are you really going to delete/merge the MAIN character pages for this show??--Stemoc (talk) 11:09, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Merge to new list of main characters. No evidence of significant coverage in independent sources, just bits and pieces, and this character (and show) has not received anything like the level of coverage given to characters from Star Trek, Friends, Buffy, Breaking Bad, etc, which legitimately have articles. Notability is not automatic. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:40, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Speedy Keep per AussieLegend - The character is notable, AFD'ing a page per WP:IDONTLIKEIT is bad faith! ..... →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 15:12, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Keep as for all primary characters in important shows, based on the information we do have. Fancruft is term to apply only to attempts at adding extensive details about insignificant characters. Otherwise it does amount to IDONTLIKEIT. DGG ( talk ) 01:20, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

The result was merge to List of recurring characters in The Suite Life on Deck. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:45, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Marcus Little

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

Non-notable fancruft. Taylor Trescott - + _{my edits} 01:04, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 20 October 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) 00:48, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Merge to List of recurring characters in The Suite Life on Deck or create new list for main cast. Does not have significant coverage in independent reliable sources, as required by the WP:GNG. In fact, I see almost no coverage whatsoever on Google News. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
merge Not really appropriate for a separate article but merging is the reasonable solution. I assumethis was brought here to get support for the merge, as there is no justification for outright deletion--we would at least redirect. DGG ( talk ) 00:29, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:45, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Lovetone

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

Remains unreferenced two years after being tagged. Also question over notability Tomintoul (talk) 18:05, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 19:09, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 19:09, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Keep not having inline references is not a reason to delete. There are three web sites given as sources for this. Notability may be questioned but that is not disproven. So the nominator should give some reason why thge topic is not notable. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:58, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment. This one is tough. I'm guessing that Lovetone is notable, but that finding sources for this 1990s era company is going to be tough. The article has no sources, and the three external links are virtually worthless (the first is currently blank, the second is a successor company which barely mentions Lovetone, and the third page doesn't exist). Perhaps there are hard copy sources? Since references have been requested for more than two years, one could reasonably remove all the content, and start over (even assuming notability). --Larry (talk) 01:01, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Comment. Surely the onus is on the originator/interested editors to substantiate notability, not on the nominator to prove non-notability! And total lack of references is another solid reason for deletion.Tomintoul (talk) 11:27, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

A completely false idea. The purpose is to construct an encyclopedia, not to delete it. You are wrong here Tomintoul. Nominators for deltion have to have a valid reason to delete. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:51, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

The idea is to construct an encyclopaedia with accurate referenced content, not personal opinion!Tomintoul (talk) 21:56, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment First ref added: "Britain's wildest effect company" it says. Guitar Player also showed up with more than a handful of passing mentions of individual musicians using a Lovetone box. AllyD (talk) 20:41, 13 October 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) 03:48, 20 October 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) 00:45, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete if that's all the references/notability we can come up with after two years, I see no reasonable cause to imagine that another week, or month, or year will help the situation any. I think at this point we can reasonably determine that this doesn't pass WP:CORP. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:35, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

The result was keep (WP:NAC) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:40, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2014 (H.R. 2609; 113th Congress)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2014 (H.R. 2609; 113th Congress)

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

No notability shown for proposed bill. Material is copied-and-pasted from the House report and Congressional Research Service, with no independent coverage. WP is not GovTrack, OpenCongress, or a WP:DIRECTORY of the countless bills that are introduced, nor is it WP:NEWS of Congressional activities. Reywas92 07:19, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

NOTDIRECTORY and NOTNEWS have no application to this article as it is not a list and it is not about a historical event (which a document is not). The number of bills introduced is not countless (which means uncountably infinite) and is in any event also irrelevant. Is this bill worthy of notice? Failing that, is there no broader topic to which this page could be redirected? James500 (talk) 17:14, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
- I guess I'll give you that, but it's also not an indiscriminate collection of information, like details about numerous failed bills. While not an event, there is no evidence of enduring notability. Even if it were to pass Congress, I do not believe a generic annual appropriations bill is worthy of notice. There is List of bills in the 113th United States Congress, which unfortunately has many other non-notable bills listed. Reywas92 10:49, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
  - There is nothing wrong with listing non-notable items as long as they are notable as a group (which bills are). I suggest redirecting this page to the list of bills. James500 (talk) 12:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Keep - A major appropriations bill that would spend billions (with a B) of dollars is definitely news and notable. The article needs improvement and expansion, not deletion. A quick Google search turned up numerous additional sources, several of which came out a few days after the article was originally written (which is why they were not initially included). I've posted those to the talk page and will incorporate them soon. It's also worth noting that the current failure of this bill to be passed (along with a dozen other appropriations bills) is what led to the current government shutdown - that's news too. Thanks. HistoricMN44 (talk) 14:11, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Update - I have added a number of additional sources, upgrading the page from 5 sources to 16. I'd be happy to have anyone review these changes. I strongly believe this article should be kept and that it meets the definition of notability. Thanks. HistoricMN44 (talk) 18:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Keep - Expansion and inclusion of more independent sources seems the obvious cure to the problem of insufficient evidence of notability. But this discussion seems to illustrate the limits of using independent sources alone as a proxy for notability. The trend in consumption of current events is away from intermediation (i.e. news reports) and toward direct consumption of information from primary sources. If people go directly to source documents that reflect significant developments rather than consuming "news" stories about them - because the news media is failing to report well on notable subjects - surely that does not mean that those subjects are less notable or significant. A major bill, introduced in the world's greatest deliberative body, apportioning billions in resources is almost certainly notable, and I think this is a poor candidate for deletion. JimHarperDC (talk) 21:40, 14 October 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) 03:50, 20 October 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) 00:42, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Keep per HistoricMN44 and JimHarperDC. Not only will this appropriate Billions of $US, but such large bills often enact substantive energy policy. I've been part of a team that has been adding notable articles on topics concerning energy law. While I have not worked on this one, it is an obvious extension of this ongoing project. Bearian (talk) 17:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Keep - for full compliance with WP:GNG this needs better independent sourcing but that is an editorial matter as is the present rather poor structure. However, this is a major, and notable, piece of legislation that is worthy of a place in our Project. Improvement not deletion is the better option. The Whispering Wind (talk) 04:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:35, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Department of State Operations and Embassy Security Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 2014 (H.R. 2848; 113th Congress)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Department of State Operations and Embassy Security Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 2014 (H.R. 2848; 113th Congress)

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

Knowledge is not a House report or the CBO, from which most of the text is copied-and-pasted, nor is is GovTrack, OpenCongress or another WP:DIRECTORY of bills. Existence of a bill in Congress does not make it notable, regardless of its passage status (this has been passed in one house, like hundreds of other bills). WP is not news, and standard coverage of Congressional actions does not provide notability. Reywas92 06:34, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

NOTDIRECTORY and NOTNEWS have no application to this article as it is not a list and it is not about a historical event (which a document is not). The number of bills introduced is also irrelevant. Is this bill worthy of notice? Failing that, is there no broader topic to which this page could be redirected? James500 (talk) 17:30, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
- Possibly this should be redirected to the List of bills in the 113th United States Congress. See the Afd for the other bill. James500 (talk) 13:04, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
  - Not sure how this would help or what it would accomplish. That list only includes bills that have actual articles on wikipedia already, not all 4,000+ bills that have simply been introduced in the 113th Congress. The list is curated to include only super controversial bills (that had preexisting articles in some cases, like CISPA), bills with a lot of media attention (appropriations bills, the immigration bill before it passed the Senate), or bills that have passed at least one chamber of Congress. Passing a chamber of Congress isn't easy. Redirecting the page back to a list with no information at all on the bill doesn't seem like a helpful thing to do. Maybe I misunderstood... HistoricMN44 (talk) 15:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Keep - This bill passed in the House and would spend $17 billion - a lot of money - to improve embassy security (among other things). Embassy security has very much been in the news due to both the Benghazi attacks and the recent closures from this summer. The fact that the Senate hasn't passed this bill yet (if ever) is also a contributing factor to the current US government shutdown (since no funds have been appropriated, which is what this bill would do). I have added a list of additional sources to the talk page that, again, a quick google search turned up. I'll try to incorporate them when I can, although I'd love to see other editors help out. Thanks. HistoricMN44 (talk) 15:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Keep - Expansion and inclusion of more independent sources seems the obvious cure to the problem of insufficient evidence of notability. But this discussion seems to illustrate the limits of using independent sources alone as a proxy for notability. The trend in consumption of current events is away from intermediation (i.e. news reports) and toward direct consumption of information from primary sources. If people go directly to source documents that reflect significant developments rather than consuming "news" stories about them - because the news media is failing to report well on notable subjects - surely that does not mean that those subjects are less notable or significant. A major bill, introduced and passed in the world's greatest deliberative body, apportioning billions in resources is almost certainly notable, and I think this is a poor candidate for deletion. JimHarperDC (talk) 21:47, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 07:59, 20 October 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) 00:38, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Keep - this is a controversial piece of legislation, introduced in response to significant recent events, that, if passed would entail major expenditure. Agreed that better independent sourcing is needed to meet WP:GNG but that seems a matter for editorial improvement rather than deletion. The Whispering Wind (talk) 18:38, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:34, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Millennium Management

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

taken from Special:AncientPages. Was last edited in 2005. Seems to serve no purpose. Coin945 (talk) 12:20, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment. I think this was intended to be a disambiguation list. If you go to article Millennium Management (disambiguation), it redirects to this article. However, only the first company in the list has an article. Do we keep disambiguation lists in such cases?--Larry (talk) 16:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 19:44, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Keep ... now that I've trimmed/expanded it to a dab page with two valid entries. PamD 12:50, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Keep 2nd entry meets MOS:DABMENTION. Boleyn (talk) 14:16, 23 October 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) 00:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Keep per above. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:47, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Donald Farmer

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

Delete per WP:Bio Vanquisher.UA 11:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 19:41, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 19:41, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 19:41, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete No sources other than some quotes about a co-star who was a murderer. No sources about Farmer. None of the films are notable works. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Keep – No valid reason given for deletion. Nom needs to consult WP:BEFORE. This film director passes WP:CREATIVE. He is the director of numerous films which have generated multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. He won the Silver Award at the 2005 WorldFest-Houston International Film Festival for his film Bollywood and Vine. Dolovis (talk) 14:36, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

The Award isn't really a significant one. I looked for "independent periodical articles or reviews" - can you provide cites? His films are like $40,000 productions. They could be notable... -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:45, 21 October 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) 00:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete - He has certainly ventured into alot of stuff but there doesn't seem to be much for an article. I found this which mentions some of his work, this (which mentions his new book) along with other news articles for this new book. A Google News search for "Donald Farmer Megan Wants a Millionaire" also found links for that murder with mentions to Don Farmer. By the way, I didn't find anything reliable to support the Silver Remi Award. Even if we used some of these news links, it wouldn't be much of an article anyway (with alot of remaining "citation needed"s) and would probably be borderline résumé. SwisterTwister talk 18:40, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 00:10, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Treesong

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

Taken from Special:AncientPages. Was last edited in 2005. Seems to serve no purpose. Coin945 (talk) 12:24, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 19:46, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Keep ... in its revised format as an unsourced (challengeable) article on the word itself, with dab hatnotes to a couple of mentions (I've also made an incoming redirect from Tree Song). There are a few other mentions in mythology/fantasy fiction, which might just about merit a mention... . Original page was created by occasional editor Mr. Treesong (talk · contribs), who obviously has an interest in the word and might be able to offer sources. Well, let's give it a try. PamD 13:10, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Though I note that the Oxford English Dictionary doesn't include "Treesong". PamD 13:28, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 22 October 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) 00:28, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete as an unsourced and apparently unsourceable dicdef. Most of the instances I've been able to find for the use of this "word" are in fantasy novels, where the usages represent a variety of concepts different from the one specified in the article. I'm not finding any reliable independent sources discussing the topic. Deor (talk) 13:43, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Delete - no evidence attesting to the notability of the concept, also as a dictionary definition. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 19:36, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 00:12, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Haydar Özkömürcü

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

Dubious notability, a blogger, does some training, seems to be self-promotional in tone. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:37, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 19:48, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 19:48, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete Has done nothing to make him notable. Run of the mill blogger.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:57, 21 October 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) 00:27, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

The result was Delete. Mr.Z-man 04:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Faradarmani

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

No indication of WP:notability. Unsourced. Google searches not finding significant coverage in independent sources. Dispute prod. noq (talk) 15:52, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 19:58, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 19:59, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment-- Even if it is found to be notable with sources, with so small a stub I would think it would be best to merge it somewhere anyway... Lesion (talk) 20:13, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Redirect (for now) to Mohammad Ali Taheri, founder of this pseudo-scientific therapy, even if I see some notability concerns about the same Taheri. Cavarrone 07:15, 21 October 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) 00:23, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete - There are no other third-party ressources on Faradarmani, and since Faradarmani simultanously is a source of income for Mohammad Ali Taheri it should be considered as an advertisement instead of an article. In my opinion the same notability issue also extends itself to the leader of this pseudo-scientific therapy. There are almost no existing third-party references regarding Mohammad Ali Taheri, and his followers (whose usernames are derived from Faradarmani terms) keep deleting posts from other users under the pretext that they are "unofficial" users, and subsquently replace with material from the homepage of Taheri. Consequently I would prefer this discussion of notability to be extended in order to include Mohammad Ali Taheri — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sepamois (talk • contribs) 11:03, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Delete I completely agree with the reasoning of Sepamois. This article is basically two lines of unsourced spam. We should delete it and then separately take a look at the article on Taheri. --MelanieN (talk) 22:07, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Students' Representative Council. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:52, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Students' Administrative Council

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

Most schools have some form of "Students' Administrative Council". The ones chosen to be in this disambiguation page are completely arbitrary, and the list of them would end up being massive and full of non-notable trivia if attempted. Coin945 (talk) 16:14, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 19:59, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete per above, Boleyn (talk) 14:08, 23 October 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) 00:22, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Redirect to Students' Representative Council, a full article that covers the subject. The Whispering Wind (talk) 21:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Redirect as suggested, the reasonable solution. DGG ( talk ) 00:23, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:53, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

List of Blake's 7 planets

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

This is an overly in-depth list of plot elements that are not critical to the understanding of Blake's 7. It lacks any real world information from reliable, third party sources to establish overall notability for the topic, so this is something better suited to Wikia. TTN (talk) 21:28, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Keep Blake's 7 is extensively documented in detail in works such as A History and Critical Analysis of Blake's 7 and Liberation: The Unofficial and Unauthorised Guide to "Blake's 7" and this content seems appropriate background of this sort. Note that 61 Cygni is in fact a "real world". Warden (talk) 22:01, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Delete The WP Manual of Style says: "Strictly avoid creating pages consisting only of a plot summary." The names of fictional and real locations where the plot took place is something better for a fan guide, not an encyclopedia. BayShrimp (talk) 00:01, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

BTW when I saw the title I thought it was about something in a poem by William Blake. I would have voted to delete that one too.BayShrimp (talk) 00:03, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete. I don't see how this satisfies WP:LISTN. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

*Keep this appropriate list of elements that are critical to the understanding of Blake's 7. It contains real world information from reliable, third party sources that establishes overall notability for the topic, so this is something best suited to Knowledge. --143.105.13.12 (talk) 20:13, 21 October 2013 (UTC) — 143.105.13.12 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. A Nobody socking again.—Kww(talk) 00:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

If people want that level of understanding they should probably just watch the show. BayShrimp (talk) 14:52, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete - (Hi, Blake here. Saw the AfD and had to post. hehe) These fictional locations would best be described simply in the their episode's description on the episode list. If there were reliable sources on the filming locations, those would probably best be put in the main series article, or somewhere similar. _Blake 19:41, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Keep. At the risk of sounding WP:OTHERSTUFFy, this is a bit of a WP:CSB issue, I think. Blake's 7 is obscure now, but that doesn't make it any less valid a WP:SPINOUT than, say, List of Firefly planets and moons would be. What's needed here is sourcing and trimming, and AfD is not for cleanup; if what's left after sourcing and trimming wouldn't be WP:UNDUE in the main article, it can be WP:BOLDly merged there then. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:03, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- What? Yes, that is OTHERSTUFFy. "List of Firefly planets" looks just as bad. This article does not need "cleanup", it has no third party sources establishing notability. It is entirely first party sources, which an article should never be. If it was to stay, it would need entirely new content, not "cleanup", thus AfD is necessary, as we do not believe that content can be found. If you want to find some sources and put some of the content in the main article, that would be great, but I don't think anything can be salvaged from here.

Another matter, all of the related series articles seem to lack sources of notability, and thus should all be merged except for

History of Blake's 7 should probably be renamed Development of Blake's 7, as history sounds like fictional history. This is good information, but better sources are needed.
List of Blake's 7 episodes - I have no quarrel with lists of episodes. Pretty sure notable series are allowed episode lists.
A Universe of Blake's 7 AND/OR Characters of Blake's 7 could be made with the summarized encyclopedic information from these articles.

I don't mean to be one who rains on parades, but it just seems like the articles under the umbrella of this series have not caught up with Knowledge's guidelines. Most of them were created over 5 years ago, and have not yet obtained the work they need done. _Blake 03:53, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

This sounds pretty good to me. I'd be willing to merge this stuff into Universe of Blake's 7, if there were consensus to do so. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Keep -- While we have multiple articles on this series, I do not see why we should not keep this list. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:58, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- Please read WP:OTHERSTUFF. Just because other bad articles exist does not mean we should keep this one. Those should be merged too, as I have said above. _Blake 14:21, 24 October 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) 00:06, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Keep and consider merging or reworking as per above discussion. Candleabracadabra (talk) 13:29, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Rename and edit. Rename to Universe of Blake's 7 or similar and remove the less important planets: some, like Xenon, were important in the series and should remain, but others were only briefly mentioned - "Wanta - The next planet, after Helotrix, on a list of worlds to come under Federation control through Sleer's Pacification Programme" sounds far too trivial. Blake's 7 is a well-known and very cultish show in the UK, subject of more than one book (as already mentioned) and plenty of other content - History of Blake's 7 contains sourced information about some planets. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:10, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Delete- this really is excessive, and sourced only to the work of fiction itself. Reyk _YO! 05:16, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Keep First, there seem to be sources, tho I m not sure how independent they are. Second, this is essentially acombination article and a much better idea than having separate ones on the planets. It's a type of article that should be encouraged, not deleted, in order to prevent fragmentation of this material from going too far. DGG ( talk ) 00:22, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
- The sources are referencing the episodes of the show itself, and as such do not establish notability. Also, deleting this article will not cause separate articles about the individual planets. That is a silly notion. _Blake 00:43, 8 November 2013 (UTC)