Knowledge (XXG)

:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 September 29 - Knowledge (XXG)

Source 📝

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:27, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

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

This character does not establish notability independent of Ultraman Ace through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 11:21, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reasons:

Alien Regulan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Pandon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Merge. None of these are really appropriate for a separate article, but the information should be retained and a redirect made. There's no reason given against merging or redirection. Notability is not required for content, just for a separate article. The form nomination used here does not address these issues, here or in the multiple other occurrences. As before, I cannot understand "There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary" -- assuming that something sensible is intended, it might mean there is little likelihood for further growth in the article. I don't see how one can really tell it, but once merged, it can always be re-expanded if the information warrants it. DGG ( talk ) 23:47, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete all. All of these articles are non-notable and were created by a banned sockpuppet known for creating trivial articles and categories. Yes, they could be merged somewhere, but the information (trivia sections, overly detailed plot summaries, and in-universe writing) is not encyclopedic and does not belong on Knowledge (XXG). If it is lost, then people will simply seek it elsewhere. Knowledge (XXG) is under no obligation to provide an index of every fictional character ever created. WP:ATD fully provides for the deletion of non-notable articles. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:05, 23 September 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) 21:42, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete per NinjaRobotPirate. The article itself fails to establish the notability of the topic, per the complete absence of "significant coverage from multiple reliable independent sources" required by WP:GNG. NinjaRobotPirate makes a good argument against a merge, but whatever is decided, the article cannot stay as a stand-alone.Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:29, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:32, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

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

I suggest that it may be time to blow this article up and start over. It is too full of

to be of any real informational use. Trying to back out the poor contributions would be difficult if not impossible. I submit that the only salvation for this article is to delete it and start over. WikiDan61ReadMe!! 14:00, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Comment Given that almost all meaningful contributions (i.e. other than cleanup, formatting, etc) has come from User:Horizontal Law, User:Viral Airfair, User:Vertical Law and User:Willy the Wimp, all of whom have been confirmed as sockpuppets, the material that has been added has to be taken with a grain of salt. Many of the sources are no longer available (if they ever were). Specifically, much of the information is sourced to the Puerto Rico Daily Sun, a newspaper whose very existence is in doubt. A review of this publication's website on the Wayback Machine (see here) shows that it was essentially a static website whose content rarely if ever changed, up until the point (some time in 2012) that the original owners lost the domain and it was taken over by a Japanese forum. The creation of hoax newspapers (including hoax websites for said hoax newspapers) to support hoax articles is a known tactic of the sock farm responsible for this article. See WP:Articles for deletion/Merhoff Post. WikiDan61ReadMe!! 15:21, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm familiar with the real estate industry in Puerto Rico and can tell you that most of the information is true, although redacted poorly with a lot of unnecessary intricate details. The main issue here is that the only way to verify such information would be in Spanish which I doubt you speak? Anyway, if you really want to verify the information there are several online newspapers published in Puerto Rico that are published in English; namely Caribbean Business and News Is My Business. Perhaps you should start looking up there? Hope this helps. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 17:06, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
The Puerto Rico Daily Sun was a printed and online newspaper but it went bankrupt. Here's the proof you need from the World Association of Newspapers and News Publishers : "Last October, Puerto Rico Daily Sun was launched to cater for the country's English speakers. The Sun's origins as the cooperative venture of staff made redundant from the folded San Juan Star make the publication an interesting case study in alternatve business models." It was a spin off created by former employees of The San Juan Star which started the Daily Sun after the Star went bankrupt. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 20:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. The essays Ahnoneemoos linked too are accurate but every case is unique. The constellation of specific issues make this article very poor and unlikely to be fixed. Meanwhile given the bad-faith editing practices of previous editor(s) we have no idea what kind of information or POV's is lurking here and being propagated. -- Green Cardamom (talk)
Why not cut the article down to a one line stub for now and then have all the sources checked by an editor we trust? James500 (talk) 07:25, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
First of all, I didn't link to any essays at all; everything that I linked to is either a policy, a guideline, or a howto, not an essay. Second, in what do you base your statement in order to say that this is "unlikely to be fixed"? What is this "constellation of specific issues"? Have they been listed or tagged with the proper template? I only see three general cleanup templates at the top of the article but no "specific issue" being identified. I also checked the article's talk page but I couldn't find any references to this "constellation of specific issues" that you mention. Finally, your prenotion that this article may have a POV is not enough to merit deletion per WP:DEL-REASON, a policy. Perhaps you should focus your time, energy, and efforts into tagging and listing the specific issues so that we can fix them rather than attempting to delete the article per WP:TPHELP? —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 14:07, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete. The problem with this article is not that it repeatedly switches between English and Spanish, although that issue should be addressed. The problem is that even if entirely translated into English, the article would constantly be changing topics and often drifting away from its intended subject. For example, the article says, "Also known as UDAG as to Action, Urban Development Grants are managed by HUD also known as the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. In 2006, The Village Voice called HUD New York City's worst landlord and the #1 worst in the United States." Not only is New York City not in Puerto Rico, it's not even clear to me that the grants under discussion involve HUD's role as a landlord anyway. Another section of the article begins, "The US Department of Justice Antitrust Division announced the launch of a new web site in October 2007 to educate consumers and policymakers about the potential benefits that competition can bring to consumers of real estate brokerage services and the barriers that inhibit that competition." This pertains to the U.S. government's activities nationwide and has no specific connection to Puerto Rico. It is likely that a useful article could be written about this topic, but this article is not close to being one. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:33, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Seems like you missed the part where I said above that real estate in Puerto Rico constitutes an important aspect of the economy of Puerto Rico (19% when you add finance and insurance) and is an integral part of the history of Puerto Rico per which states that " the construction/real-estate sector is one of the chief sources of wealth in Puerto Rico". Furthermore, "real estate by <territory>" is quite common on Knowledge (XXG), see: Category:Real estate by country as real estate is an important aspect of all regional economies. Having said that, I already reworked the article lead which should give you an idea on how important this article is. Finally, as I have stated before, while a lot of information on the article is quite indeed irrelevant, most of the information is actually accurate. It's just redacted poorly. For example, the fact that Puerto Rico is a territory of the United States is important for the real estate of Puerto Rico, as federal laws apply in the jurisdiction (and therefore grants, subsidies, and regulations which all have significant effects on the island). —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 11:45, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment: I have removed the information that was not pertinent to Puerto Rico and restructured the article. The information presented right now is relevant to the subject but it is poorly redacted. I welcome those wishing to delete this article to instead focus their efforts on improving the information and redact it so that it portrays its relevance to Puerto Rico. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 14:37, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. I am changing my recommendation to "weak keep" in recognition of the fact that Ahnoneemoos has made an effort to edit this article including writing a decent lead paragraph. However, this "keep" is a weak one because the article still has a long way to go before it will be useful to readers. It may need to be cut down to a stub and then rebuilt. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:22, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep and fix. Afd isn't cleanup. James500 (talk) 17:55, 29 September 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) 21:40, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - I supposed I'd be more comfortable with deleting or stubifying and starting again but the question there comes down to whether there is any need to purge any portion of the history to necessitate the former rather than the latter. Possibly not. There's clearly a place for this per {{Sidebar Economy of Puerto Rico}} which is full of red links. We can probably lose a good portion of what is there without losing much value - it seems the parts worth retaining are those that have been worked on by Ahnoneemoos. As long as that effort continues there's probably not a lot of point deleting this. Stalwart111 23:37, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep. Removing the current content and recreating the article from scratch can be done without having to get the article deleted first. It's an editing action that anyone, including the nominator, can perform. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:00, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:40, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

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

No indication or evidence of notability. Prodded back in January 2013; prod disputed, but article was never improved. PKT(alk) 15:12, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. PKT(alk) 15:12, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. PKT(alk) 15:12, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep. Though the current version of the article is a sad stub, a Google News Archive search shows significant coverage in many independent, reliable sources for this group. When the New York Times ran an article about the response of anti-Marcos groups to the dictator's fall, this group was mentioned in the first sentence. This book describes the group'a history in Canada, including its name changes over the years. This book discusses the efforts by Marxist-Leninist groups in both the Philippines and the United States to influence the coalition. Newsweek magazine covered the group in 1982. Our coverage of organization opposing the Marcos dictatorship is weak and this article is weak. Deleting it isn't the solution; improving it is. Cullen Let's discuss it 02:51, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep - If the subject was covered by such publications such as The New York Times and Newsweek then why not? Narutolovehinata5 08:27, 23 September 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) 21:35, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
If the article had more meat on its bones, then perhaps it should be kept - but as of now it consists of 1 sentence and no referencing. There is no indication or evidence of any notability in this article. Improve it if you can, please. PKT(alk) 13:51, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Crucified Barbara. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:33, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NALBUMS. Insulam Simia (talk · contribs) 15:22, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 23 September 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) 21:34, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Sahara Forest Project. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:41, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

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

Fails the general criterias as of WP:BIO, as well as WP:ACADEMIC. I won't suggest that briefly mentioning in an CNN article justifies an own article. Grrahnbahr (talk) 20:50, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I believe the criterias of WP:BIO is represented by "Creative professionals; people know for orginating a significant new concept, theory or technique" in this chase Hauge is behind the Sahara Forest Project, a new concept working to use the waste from a production phase as a resorce for an other production phase. At the same time "greening the desert".— Preceding unsigned comment added by Selllllo (talk • contribs)
That's a good idea. Are there any sources that can verify he is an inventor or pioneer or founding father or other such wording? Anything to support he is known for this, not just done it. Sources would need to be independent of Hauge eg. newspaper, magazines. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:56, 27 September 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) 21:23, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:34, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

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

This character does not establish notability independent of Ultraman Ace through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 22:06, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reasons:

Alien Metron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Vakishim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete all as non-notable fancruft. None of these articles are referenced or even attempt to establish notability. As minor characters, they are not independently notable and are unlikely to be the subject of a search. If consensus is to redirect them, that's acceptable, but I do not see any need to do so. Fans will more likely to seek information on Wikia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:23, 23 September 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) 21:20, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete (redirect acceptable) per NinjaRobotPirate. The article itself fails to establish the notability of the topic, per the complete absence of "significant coverage from multiple reliable independent sources" required by WP:GNG.Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:30, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:40, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

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

Completely unsourced, no notability. —Шαмıq ☪ тαʟκ✍ @ 22:18, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete: Unless it can be sourced. Notability less of an issue (because all populated places are notable) than WP:V at this point.--Milowent • 02:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
    • It is still a non-notable topic. No sources cover the topic of ‘Chattha’ villages in Pakistan. According to WP:GNG:
If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list.
  • "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.
And here the issue is that no source covers the subject, so it fails the very first requirement for being notable. And as to verifiability, agreed with Milowent.—Шαмıq ☪ тαʟκ✍ @ 18:57, 23 September 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) 21:17, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:41, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

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

No indicaton of notability - made up style (Bear School?) Peter Rehse (talk) 21:03, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:03, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete - References provided aren't very helpful without page numbers, and in one case, would appear to be original research as the source is a practitioner. One of the books in the reference section is avaialble for searching through Google Books but it does not mention "Kuma-Ryu" anywhere in it. See . -- Whpq (talk) 21:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
I would say that none of the references refer to Kuma-ryu. They are common to George Dillman and related articles and these articles have no mention of Kuma-ryu.Peter Rehse (talk) 13:25, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:41, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

1d4Con (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No coverage by reliable and independent sources. Esw01407 (talk) 20:58, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I created the article because I thought it would be nice to have a wiki page for my convention to help raise awareness. There isn't any coverage, because last year we wanted to start small. We didn't have any media coverage and outside of Facebook and Google+, the only place for information is the website I created, sited in the article. I sincerely hope that you don't delete my article because there isn't any media coverage for it. I made the post to help spread awareness about my idea. I love wikipedia and this is my first contribution, I don't know all of the rules, but I was hoping making this very real event would be harmless, especially when I'm planning another event for next year. Amvteknoboy (talk) 13:43, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Delete - Good luck with your convention. But, Knowledge (XXG) is not for promotion. If the con grows in the future and attracts the coverage in reliable sources to establish notability, then would be the time for an article to be created. -- Whpq (talk) 21:40, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. @Amvteknoboy: While a Knowledge (XXG) can help to raise awareness, that's not its purpose. It's kind of the other way around: Knowledge (XXG) covers articles in some proportion to a subject's existing significance. Get some coverage in local newspapers, noteworthy blogs/websites, etc. and you'll have an easier time. In the meantime you might want to copy the existing content to your user space (see WP:Userfication). --Rhododendrites (talk) 13:57, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for the tip. Amvteknoboy (talk) 10:48, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. CFORK arguments have not been addressed and significantly less weight has been given to new or apparently spa accounts Spartaz 08:48, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

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

Procedural nomination on behalf of User:Khajidha, whose rationale follows. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:21, 29 September 2013 (UTC) Article is a POV fork of the existing Name of the Czech Republic page. --Khajidha (talk) 18:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Yopie (talk) 22:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Short history of the region? ROFL - 1400 years Aleatorica (talk) 05:53, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
For clarity, I did not mean that the region's history is short. I meant that the historical material in the article is relatively short. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 15:01, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
The last sentence above summarizes my point. I am not a vigorous partisan in this discussion, but I think the drive to delete this is too narrowly focused. Can we please find a way to keep this information in an accessible way? Pete unseth (talk) 19:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Please, watch your language and provide reasonable arguments for or against. This is not helping anyone.Geog25 (talk) 18:00, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Do you understand what a POV fork is? Do you understand that the rules are not Yopie's or Mewulwe's, but Knowledge (XXG)'s? Do you understand that no one is arguing that the article for France be moved to the French Republic? Both France and the Czech Republic are at those names because that is what they are normally called in English. --Khajidha (talk) 16:39, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Retain! You can hardly say "normally called in English" because it is neither normal nor correct if anybody writes or speaks of, say, "the Czech Republic under Charles IV" or "Mozart´s visit to the Czech Republic". The state known as the Czech Republic has only existed since 1993. You simply NEED a geographical name which applies to the area, not to the varying forms of reign or government.DaisyXL 21:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaisyXL (talk • contribs) — Duplicate !vote: DaisyXL (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.
This is what the country is normally called in English when discussing current events. When discussing history, I have always seen it called things like "Bohemia" or "the Czechlands". --Khajidha (talk) 17:52, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
It is obvious you did not read the article, but you know it should be deleted. Your opinions seem to be an embodiment of the necesity of its publishing. Inter alia, the name "Czechlands" has been never used. It is usually circumvented by Czech lands, where the word "lands" does not represent proper name (ling.). Askave (talk) 15:38, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
I have read it. It is a POV fork of Name of Czech Republic. Oh wow, I made a slight typo and left out a space. --Khajidha (talk) 13:55, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Retain and probably adjust - I wrote similar article few years ago here, but it was unmercifully deleted by the same admin. Czechia seems to be under the supervision of somebody who is interested to hide it. Mean strategy. Then, it is easy to say "the problem does not exist" or "the name is not used". Neewi (talk) 07:15, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Welcome back after all these years. May I ask about how you heard about this discussion?--Mojo Hand (talk) 22:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
  • 1) "Name of the Czech Republic" is an inprecise (better wrong) title, because the content deals with all names (and their origins) of the Czech state in its history. "The Czech Republic" is a political name of the Czech state, which has been existed only for 20 recent years, so, the action potential of this name is only within last 20 years and cannot be applied in connection with its history before 1993.
2) Countries use usually (in overwhelming majority) two names: a) transient political name and b) short-form (geographical) name. Transient name does NOT define the country in its historical context (only in a few cases, when the political system has been never changed), but geographical name does. That's why using only political name is very unpractical and confusing. "Czechia" is a neutral (apolitical) name, which can be applied in general, that is, also in historical context. From 1993, there has been the dispute about using THIS concrete name under way. Therefore, the article represents a special subcategory. But, it is necessary to notice I could not created any solo article a) if the title of original one was proper and b) if its special content was not contiously deleted by opponents of the name "Czechia". Maybe you can read the article, it is the way to understand .....
3) Also the level of the discussion and oppinions in itself can serve as the proof of the necessity of article's publishing....
4) Instead of factual discussion, some admins (opponents) are meanly trying to find the way to discredit supporters of the article to discover the reason for its deletion. In reality, they discredit themselves and harm already not well reputation of Knowledge (XXG). Askave (talk) 15:38, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
  • 1) I think you are interpreting the name of the article "Name of the Czech Republic" a little too narrowly. That article is about why the Czech Republic article is called that name and not some other name (such as Czechia). 2)See, this is what I have been talking about when I say that you and others are interpreting the lack of use of Czechia as some sort of slight towards the Czech people. "But why aren't we like all these other countries?" Don't know why, doesn't matter why, the fact remains that the term Czechia is rarely used in English sources. Therefor, the usage of that name on Knowledge (XXG) should be strictly limited. Say that it is out there, say how it came about, say that such-and-such Czech authority recommends its use; but it is not something that should be used in article titles or most article text (aside from text specifically about it or in quotations). User SoelProkop's assertion that the opposition to the use of the name Czechia in English language text is some sort of attempt to usurp the authority of the Czech government is another example of this "Czechs are being persecuted" argument. As is Neewi's assertion that people are using a "mean strategy" against Czechs. 3) The fact that most of those arguing for this article are single purpose accounts doesn't say much in favor of it. --Khajidha (talk) 16:44, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
  • All the time, you are out of the heart of matter. I alreadey asked you for reading the article, but OK, I'll try to explain it for the hundredth time.
There is no problem in English speakers, the problem was caused by Czechs themselves (I did not write anything you mentioned). There are 50 small countries in Europe and their distinguishing is naturally complicated for the average recipient from other continents. European people also have problems to know all states of the Union. I fully understand it and absolutely do not have any grievance. It would be absurd. After the breakup of communist block, representatives of English speaking countries and UN asked all new countries : "How will you call your country in English ? (it is comprehensible, who should care about names of so many small states, it was simply under distinguishing ability) Let us know and officially include the name into the list of countries of UN. We will respect it". All countries did it, Czech representatives included the name Czechia into the UN list of countries, but simultaneously, in general public, they started to argue about the short name of the country in Czech, and that problem was gradually transported also into English, which was resulted in using only political name by Czech politicians, ambassadors, etc., and (comprehensibly) also by Czech people with some knowledge of English. Therefore, English speaking people (naturally) do know the short name only sporadically, however (! now the point !) its Czech equivalent was finally adopted after years and commonly used. The statement of English speaking countries has not been changed (see again the article). I do not know too much about Central African Republic or Dominican Republic, but enough to say, that comparison with Czech state from historical point of view is hardly possible.
So, the short form name of Czech state in Czech is known and used, its translataltion into English is known, but it is not commonly used. Duchy of Bohemia, Kingdom of Bohemia, Lands of Bohemian Crown, Czech lands, Czechoslovakia, Czechia, Bohemia and Moravia, Czechoslovak Socialist Republic, Czech and Slovak Federation, and Czech Republic - all names of one country in the history. Total mess, however we speak about the same country (nothing like that you can find in Central African Republic :-).
What is the sense to call the country by all those names and totally confuse the average recipient, who (comprehensibly) does not know history of the Czech state ?
What is the sense to separate articles in Knowledge (XXG) (Czech history, culture, etc., etc. - one example for all - simultanous existence of the articles "Music of the Czech lands" and "Music of the Czech Republic"), when we speak about the same country ?
I am speaking about common sense now, nothing more. I do not complain in my article, and if I show all those discrepancies, it is not any POV, how you try to claim, they are simply factual and the dispute is factual too. They are opinion from both sides there and the situation is described objectively. Without any pretentiousness, hardly to find something I would not know about that problem, so, I feel to be able to write an objective treatise about it, though, I am a supporter of Czechia. As I already wrote, it is not my fault, that one side arguments are poor, it is their problem, not mine. This is what it is. It is not possible to add a reference to every sentence, but I can, you can be sure.
Btw.in Knowledge (XXG), there is a huge article about Macedonia name disputing and nobody wants to delete it. You cannot wonder I feel some strange and unfair tendencies from some admins, moreover, when their activity in Knowledge (XXG) is focused predominantly on deleting of every mention of Czechia. In comparison with "single purpose accounts", the score would seem to be balanced, but the power is on the side of admins, so there is not any equilibrium at all. In addition, Knowledge (XXG) defines itself a free medium. All people have right to write, though only to the problem that is interesting for them. Those accusations I "clonned" myself into multiple accounts is a funny assumption only one person in the world is interested in the issue :-). Useless to comment something so silly like that.Askave (talk) 06:33, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
  • All that is completely beside the point. I asked above how this topic differs from the topic of Names of the Czech Republic, and all that you have given in reply is an explanation of how it is the same topic. If you disagree with the title of Names of the Czech Republic then the thing to do is to propose renaming it on its talk page and to accept any consensus that emerges, not to start another article on the precise same topic with a different title. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:25, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I think I explained it sufficiently to understand the reason. Moreover, the title of the article you mention was already renamed from ORIGINAL "Czechia (one-word name of the Czech Republic) https://en.wikipedia.org/Czechia_(one-word_name_of_the_Czech_Republic), in addition by the same admins, who are trying now to delete my article. So, the topic was originally different and more proper for the content of my treatise. That's why, to try (above that only in talk page) to ask for its redirecting back or ask for some consensus is a naive proposal, it would be like Sisyphus work. Askave (talk) 14:15, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
  • What you have explained is that you are unwilling to accept consensus based on what English speakers actually call this country rather than on what you would like us to call it. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:19, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Absolute nonsense. You miss all I am talking about. Consensus of English speakers ? What do you know about it ? Where can I find it ? If you mean admins of Knowledge (XXG), this is not any consensus of English speakers, Knowledge (XXG) people are not representative group of English speakers, it is absurd. In addition, the main role in deleting the name in Knowledge (XXG) play Czechs, above all Yopie, it is his main "work" in English Knowledge (XXG). I can send you articles in media, where English speakers are wondering, why Czechs do not want to be call by a normal name. I have never seen any "consensus". People call something as they know from media etc. In majority, they know only Czech Republic, so they use it, nothing more, nothing less, but the short name of the country exists. It was natural way, absolutely not "they rather use something". I explained the origin of that problem in my article and I can assure you : if Czech politicians would send officially thier decision to representatives of English speaking countries, the name will be used (again see my article). So, I repeat for million times, the problem is not in English speakers. Is there some conclusion why Lithuania is called Lithuania in English ? Of course, NO. There has never done any consensus of English speakers, they do not care about it. Politicians agreed, spread it, so it is used. You make some conclusions, however your knowlewdge of the issue is insufficient. I inform and analyze some problem, which politicians are unwilling to finally solve, nothing more. This is not about MY using of Czechia or MY unwillingness to respect some non-existent consensus. This discussion is a vitious circle. Askave (talk) 07:57, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
"People call something as they know from media etc. In majority, they know only Czech Republic, so they use it, nothing more, nothing less, but the short name of the country exists." THAT is exactly the consensus you are looking for. English speakers don't generally KNOW the word Czechia, so it is not appropriate for use here in article titles or the majority of text. You seem to want to use Knowledge (XXG) to spread the usage of Czechia. That is not what Knowledge (XXG) is for. If you really feel strongly about this, you should contact the Czech government and ask them to make more efforts to spread the usage of this word. Changing the name they are seated under at the UN would be a good start.--Khajidha (talk) 13:55, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Retain! Retain !! I cannot understand the fact that anonymous Knowledge (XXG)-admins let the users vote (!!!) for or against the contents and the purpose of an expert article and thus decide about the short name of a sovereign founding member of the UNO (then under the name Czechoslovakia). They quite forget that only the particular state gives itself its own short name (if necessary, e.g., after splitting up of a former joint state into two), which was fluctuating in the course of history. This follows from the article under discussion.

The complainers (apparently aiming at the name Czechia cancellation or even at a ban on the name Česko/Czechia) can only complain at the United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names (UNGEGN), which organizes regular UN Conferences on the Standardization of Geographical Names or, as a lower authority, Regional conferences. So the approach and activities of the "enlightened" wiki-admins are, in my opinion, totalitarian and have a tinge of medieval obscurantism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SoelProkop (talk • contribs) 20:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC) — SoelProkop (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

The result was redirect to Boss (2013 Bengali film)#Sequel. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:51, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Boss 2(2013 Bengali film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There have been two speedy delete requests for this article. The first was an A7, but films cannot be deleted as an A7. The latest one was G2 (test page), but that's not applicable, either. I thought about deleting it under G3 as a hoax. To the extent I understand it, Boss 2 would be a sequel to Boss (2013 Bengali film), which was released last month. If there is a sequel in the works, I can't imagine it would be released this year. But if the hoax part is only the year, I'm not comfortable using G3. I found a couple of unreliable sources on the web indicating there is a sequel (e.g. ), but it could be made-up wishful thinking. In any event, the film is easily deleted pursuant to WP:NFF if for no other reason. Bbb23 (talk) 14:09, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
and per WP:INDAFD, a few more
  • Delete as failing WP:NFF, but not as a speedy. Redirect for now to Boss (2013 Bengali film)#Sequel where this topic might best for now have a sourced mention. Sorry guys... but using a better search parameter, the topic of this planned sequel to the 2013 Boss is NOT unsourcable, and is beginning to be spoken about in independent sources., (etal) It is simply TOO SOON. We can add inforation on a "planned sequel" to the Boss article, but it does not merit a separate article... yet. It's just that the author used a title that returned poor results. We can allow recreation once we have more sourcing toward notability. Schmidt, 10:33, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
  • As I said in my nomination, a film can never be speedy deleted per A7. Other criteria might apply, but not A7. Thus, if a deletion discussion is to be closed early on a film because the film is obviously insufficiently notable, it would be a snowball closure, not a speedy. As for the sources Michael found, thank you very much. The redirect sounds reasonable to me, but before doing so, the title should be changed so there's a space between the 2 and the open paren and the year can't be right. So, someone should propose a reasonable title.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
  • That makes good sense. My own thought until filming begins and we have a confirmed title is something like Boss 2 (Bengali film sequel)... but NOT for the article title if it ever merits a separate article. Schmidt, 01:20, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:53, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

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

This does not establish notability independent of Dungeons & Dragons through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 13:28, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:54, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman bin Mohammad Al Saud (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

After a declined speedy and prod, it would seem that this article still does not meet the minimum threshold of WP:GNG. The Saudi royal family has hundreds of members and membership in that family alone does not confer notability. EricSerge (talk) 12:52, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Just to clarify, the Saudi family has thousands (not hundreds) of royals. Knowledge (XXG) estimates the number to be 15,000, but it could be higher (see House of Saud).Indigosails (talk) 17:43, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Delete IIRC this is an article requested by the gentleman about whom the article is written, putting his employee in a very difficult position. Notability, unlike royalty, is not inherited. This gentleman lacks notability in any encyclopaedic sense. If and when he gains genuine notability he may have an article here, but not until then. Fiddle Faddle 10:21, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Delete In Arab culture, paternal lines are very important. I lived in Saudi as a westerner for some time. But absent notability in his own right, this prince is stretching his ties to Abdulaziz Al-Saud a bit too far. If the article were rewritten to make relevant his notability, as opposed to his nobility, then i would encourage reconsideration. But the article just isn't written very well and should be deleted as is.Indigosails (talk) 20:31, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:55, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

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

There's no coverage for the site to pass WP:ORG or WP:N. I've also searched for their product "Trafficmate" which is a cellphone app and there's no news or other reliable source coverage either -- from what I've learned from sources (that we wouldn't use for notability or verifiability) is that it's a user submitted traffic update thingamajig -- but I haven't found any reliable source writing about either the company/site or the product. Also, randomly clicking through a couple of cities that they have listed on the site, it appears that they stopped any updates soon after launch and adding the Knowledge (XXG) page. —SpacemanSpiff 12:35, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 12:37, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 12:37, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 12:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:47, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

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

COI OP has not asserted notability. No sources provided. Just another commercial software.OP removed a speedy tag and a PROD tag. Alexf 12:24, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:47, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

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

Not Notable per WP:GNG Brainclub (talk) 11:56, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No prejudice towards a merge discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:56, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

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

Listed on behalf of IP user. | Uncle Milty | talk | 12:06, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Original nomination: It is an original research largely by its creator as part of his series of work also of original research on the theme of the subject of the Conflict of laws; only an Israeli Jewish (religious) divorce can be recognized by civil authorities overseas, and that is only an automatic legal right in domestic law in the United Kingdom and in the Republic of Ireland; the article is unnecessarily, unacceptably and unreasonably hypothetical and legalistic, and ought to be merged with the main article, being Get (divorce document). 212.50.182.151 (talk) 10:57, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

  • Delete I confess I'm guilty of giving it it's current topic. On a re-read the title should probably be: "The response of civil courts to the refusal of a Jewish husband to give his wife a Jewish divorce". Which is perhaps another way of saying that it's an essay (a badly written one at that) which was inserted into Knowledge (XXG) and then forgotten about. It should be deleted. It has nothing to do with the conflict of laws or civil recognition of Jewish divorce. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 15:59, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
-- ShinmaWa 17:18, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
If you had your way, the Turin Shroud would probably also never be tested! A series of bad editing dating back some 7 and 1/2 years ago, if discovered, should still be exposed, in my view, and not in any way to seek to punish the now retired editor, but in order to remove the bad edits, bad information and the simple rubbish from Knowledge (XXG). --- 212.50.182.151 (talk) 21:00, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
You are more than welcome and, in fact, encouraged to speak to the content of this article in terms of its notability, availability of reliable sources to facilitate verifiability, redundancy of other articles, and the like. However, the screed I removed was a long and detailed indictment of one of the many contributors to that article, which is unacceptable. Thing is, you knew full well it was unacceptable when you wrote it as your comment plainly said: "I do indeed realise with much foreboding that each and every word of what I had written and about to submit can cause your most loyal, humble and obedient servant to be blocked, nay banned". Therefore, I shouldn't need to remind you, as I've already done on your talk page, that you are expected to discuss content, not people. Also, assume good faith and remain civil. Thank you. -- ShinmaWa 04:12, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
And what of the rule of IAR, or would you rather just want to simply have me kept quiet at all costs instead? I don't know! Do you somehow know him privately? What I had written was precisely because I had edited Knowledge (XXG) previously, and that some Wikipedians, like members in some sort of a cult, have this increasingly ridiculous tendency of worshipping the internal rules of Knowledge (XXG) as if they were the Ten Commandments, the Torah, the Talmud, the Bible, the Qur'an and the Hadith and like to use them to insulate themselves from the Real World, and thereby themselves becoming more and more detached from it almost like in a fantasy World. The said normal norms of the said Real World (or at least the more civilised part thereof) expect that a whistle-blower like me ought not to be bullied into silence in the way that I am now being disgracefully treated. The said normal norms of the said Real World also provide that a person claiming to be Sir Peter, Bt. and Kt., Q.C., D.D., Ph.D., M.D. (aged 70 years), when he is in fact Master Paul, a school drop-out (aged 17 years), is not to be trusted, and that his works by default unreliable and liable to without the need for lengthy discussions be undone, retracted, withdrawn or reversed. A person who was not who he said he was, was surely himself acting in bad faith, and that the rule Knowledge (XXG):AGF should therefore no longer apply, and neither should he (or his (misguided) supporters) expect the assumption of good faith; and if you cannot even see that, then I really do despair! The whole sorry business reads like an earlier version of the Essjay business, Johann Hari and the Knowledge (XXG) biography controversy, and you absolutely refuses to see it—and worse still, are refusing to stop shooting down desperately the messenger into silence! --- 212.50.182.151 (talk) 06:50, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
You already know what I would rather: Content, not people. You do seem to have a problem understanding that very simple concept though. On the other hand, I did find it somewhat amusing -- and ironic -- that in a response to me encouraging you to speak to the actual content of the article, you accuse me of attempting to silence you. *sigh* Although it is plainly obvious that you fail to see it, I am in fact trying to help you by attempting to steer you down more constructive paths. In case you haven't noticed, your current tack is not gaining any traction at all and you are undermining your own credibility. No one is taking you seriously at all. If you would stop for a moment, listen to what the community is trying to tell you and steer your efforts down more constructive avenues, you might find they get better results.-- ShinmaWa 01:52, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge. There's obvious original research, but that just needs to be trimmed; a good deal of content is verifiable and encyclopedic. Merging to the main article would overwhelm with civil matters an article on what is centrally a religious topic (even if it needs to be fleshed out more with sources in that line). Let's keep this article to preserve due weight, and fix its problems through normal editing. Alternately, a merge to Agunah may be acceptable, since all the cases seem related to that subtopic of the get (well, men and not just women, but even so); I still think keeping is preferable though. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:19, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Valid topic, just needs to have orig research removed Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:29, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
A valid topic with only original research and virtually free of inline citations still ought to be summarily removed, especially ones touching on the subject of Law; otherwise, how can we stop others from simply making all sorts of stuff up under the subject? When did the rule of Knowledge (XXG):No original research suddenly become so negotiable these days? 212.50.182.151 (talk) 09:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Did you just make that up? In any event, perhaps you failed to see the refs in the article that belie your statement that the article is bereft of anything but OR. OR should be removed, but this without question contains non-OR material. And it AfD is not for cleanup. If you have an OR problem, handle it by flagging OR, discussing it on a talkpage, and if appropriate removing it. AfD is the wrong course if the article also, as here, has non-OR RS ref support, and is a mixture of the two.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:52, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Ad hominem; and what you are saying is that the article should somehow be compulsorily salvaged after a course of a protracted, open-ended and lengthy discussion on the OR Board—in this case—by lay persons who are also not themselves jurists, legal theories, other legal academics, professors of law, lecturers of law, counselors, attorneys, Queen's Counsels, senior counsels, solicitor advocates, solicitors, barristers, advocates, commissioners of oaths, notaries public or students of law, and would therefore none the wiser. --- 212.50.182.151 (talk) 06:50, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
I share with you a concern that at the Project we have editors -- who not only may not be trained in the law, but may be 12-year-olds -- rending their views on legal issues. I've seen the problem as being greatest in matters such as editors who are ignorant (and take not the time to become educated) opining on issues of copyright law. Lack of knowledge seems not to be a bar to expression of a view there. And no doubt, some non-lawyers like to "play lawyer" -- and unlike the real world, we let them play it here, and their "!vote" has the same value as that of an attorney. That said, when it comes to the above issues, I have a lesser concern, and I see the !votes of those who do not support deletion as being well-founded in policy and the instant facts. The key to focus on is not whether the article has OR (which can be excised), but whether the subject is notable and appropriate refs so-indicating reflect as much. That is the nature of AfD. --Epeefleche (talk) 15:41, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
(1) Citations numbers one to four, as they are at the time of the submission of this comment, are obviously primary sources and cannot themselves be counted but as one, and as something else and never as valid citations from reliable secondary or tertiary sources.

(2)The citations for the cases cited are more about the separation of the Church and the State and Church Disestablishment in the Province of Québec in Canada rather than it is about the Gett or Jewish divorce.

(3) Most of the citations and references are not so much about "civil recognition of Jewish divorce" as such, but "what happens when an Orthodox Jewish husband refuses to issue to his already-divorced and also Orthodox Jewish former wife a piece of signed and dated paper called a Gett, when the Jewish woman is unable, unlikely to or would not be able to secure a ruling of divorce from a Jewish Beth Din for whatever reason, and if she were to remarry another Orthodox Jew without the Gett, both parties would only not be able to do so validly in an Orthodox synagogue, and if they did so anyway by any other means, any issue from such a new matrimonial union would become within Orthodox Judaism as of the "mamzerim", or, in effect, illegitimates; and how the secular law in general and the Courts of the Secular Law in particular intervene in such a situation, and, why the State should intervene, and also, why it should not intervene". A classical and the ultimate case of legal commentary; i.e., that is to say, original research; having no place in Knowledge (XXG)—and a very poorly-written legal commentary too! Legal commentaries also necessarily violate the concept of NPoV, and almost all cases, also copyright. Delete it. There is no denying about it, but only a person who has not actually himself read the article in question—but only the list on the bottom end of it, and without actually himself examining the citations—would actually think that the article is what the title says it is. It is not. TL; DR. Please, I beg of you all, would persons commenting at least actually read the concerned article in the first place! --- 212.50.182.151 (talk) 06:50, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
I've had some trouble trying to download that reference, but my feeling is that the specifics of the article content really doesn't matter. If you apply the most extreme solution I suggested (which is up to you and other editors of the article) you end up with a short list of helpful references, which is still enough to pass WP:GNG, and you can generate a stub from those. I would not cut out primary references from that list - they're still sources, even if you must use them with care. I feel quite certain that there are a much larger number of relevant sources you could add, though, and I encourage that. Wnt (talk) 21:34, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:57, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

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

Notability was only temporary; a short-lived reality television show. A show produced and shown on a notable TV channel, is not necessarily notable.Hafspajen (talk) 11:05, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

  • Keep Apparently MBC is one of the big four TV channels in South Korea, so a show produced and shown on one of them, should be notable. Infact, it should be even more notable if it was cancelled in such a short space of time. Lugnuts 12:40, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete and Merge - put a sentence about the safety concerns leading to the cancellation on the Celebrity Splash! page, however the article is entirely unsourced and short. I agree it was a large broadcaster, but there is no benefit to having an article like this. Adrianw9 (talk) 16:59, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Major show on major network, but agreed something about it being canceled due to safety problems should be added to the franchise article. Nate • (chatter) 18:09, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Yes - major show on major network. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:30, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Article creator here. About notability issue, I can tell you it's notable enough in many aspects. 1. Broadcast on major terrestrial network. 2. Produced by SM C&C, a subsidiary of SM Entertainment. 3. It had a line up of celebrities, including those from modern pop idol bands. (No doubt some of them are from SM) 4. Even it's cancellation is notable enough because it raised concerns on safety in S. Korean reality shows. The comedian who got biggest injury is a celebrity to general public (not just to some idol fans). JSH-alive/ 16:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Deleted. by NawlinWiki as "Multiple reasons: speedy deletion criteria A7, G11" (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 11:41, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

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

The article creator is in breach of WP:COI, as their username is the company which this article is about. Also seems to breach WP:PROMOTION. Videomaniac29 (talk) 10:56, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

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

person only claimed to be 115 years old never verified. Redsky89 (talk) 06:42, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 07:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 07:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
The best way to defend the article is to post additional sources like the ones already there, newspaper and magazines, the more better. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:57, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
I could do that and it could still be deleted. I'd feel a bit of an idiot then! Francium12 (talk) 13:04, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:GNG multiple reliable sources. We don't care about the truth of the 115-year claim, we only care if the topic is notable, which by GNG means it has been covered in multiple reliable sources. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete This is yet another abuse of, and demonstration of the failings in, multiple wiki guidelines. This person made the news for one event which only achieved "supposed" significant coverage because most media outlets will repeat any rubbish without the slightest attempt at checking whether a claim is true or not, despite being cited as reliable sources (thus not even satisfying the "verifiability not truth" maxim). Any notability this person supposedly has will be temporary at best. Why? Because it is not only extremely unlikely to be true, but even less likely to be proven true. There are hundred, if not thousands, of unproven claims to this sort of age, the sheer number of which is a clear indication that only the most exceptional should be considered notable enough to justify an article. This case isn't one of them. DerbyCountyinNZ 23:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Many Category:Longevity claims have Knowledge (XXG) pages. The category is called "claims". It is not our responsibility to verify longevity claims for absolute truth. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 00:53, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete. Yes, one could argue that Sant Kaur Bajwa has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources and that she would therefore pass WP:BIO. But taking a closer look at this guideline, one finds that not only the mere existence of media coverage is demanded, but also encyclopedic suitability of the subject in question. And I dare say that this is not met here: Just claiming to be very old, without a definite proof, is not sufficient (also because of WP:V). Please note that Knowledge (XXG) is not a newspaper. This means that being featured in some kind of a news source does not automatically call for a Knowledge (XXG) article. All coverage is about her death, so that one could further argue that she is only notable for one event (dunno if "death" is applicable here, though). In any case WP:EVENT also comes to mind: There has not been any ongoing news coverage; what we are talking about here is a relatively short news spike. To sum it up, even though there are reasonable sources, she should not be included into Knowledge (XXG) because there is just no "raison d'être".--FoxyOrange (talk) 23:39, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
There are many articles on Knowledge (XXG) Category:Longevity claims. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 00:53, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Knowledge (XXG) can have standalone articles for incomplete longevity claimants so long as there are multiple reliable sources that cover the topic in depth. We do not bias against people born in countries that did not issue birth certificates. Just because she has a Knowledge (XXG) article doesn't make her claim complete. But not giving her a Knowledge (XXG) article because her claim is incomplete is biased. The way to handle it is to rely on GNG which says multiple reliable sources that cover the topic in depth. When those sources appeared is irrelevant, subjects can become notable after death. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep: Reasons noted above. PrairieKid (talk) 05:34, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment -- If this were true, it might possibly make her notable. The problem is likely to be that there is no way of verifying her date of birth, as there was (I believe) no registration of birth in India at the time. It might conceivably be possible to verify it from the dates of birth and parental ages of successive gnerations of her descendants. My guess is that all the sources cited depend on a single press release, probably by a member of the family. A redirect to Longevity claims or Incomplete longevity claims might be more appropriate, as there is nothing notable about her apart from her alleged age. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Having looked at the targets, most of the claims do NOT have articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:22, 11 September 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) 01:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: To be on the safe side, let us discuss one more week.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:37, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 09:37, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:47, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

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

Doesn't have any references, and seems to fail WP:GNG. States in article that his album sold 3000 copies, I don't think that this is enough to be considered a notable artist. Videomaniac29 (talk) 09:09, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I've searched various databases using various search terms but haven't been able to find any sources that would help to support WP:N notability for this artist. Delete for now, unless/until some third-party sources turn up. Paul Erik 18:28, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:06, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

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

Low level cricketer, hasn't played First-class, List A or Twenty20 cricket. Fails WP:GNG. Jevansen (talk) 08:43, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted by User:Bbb23 per CSD A7. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

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

Fails to meet WP:GNG, and doesn't have any references. Possibly fails WP:PROMOTION. Delete tags were removed by the article's creator. Videomaniac29 (talk) 07:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:22, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:22, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:22, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. --George Ho (talk) 16:13, 30 September 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

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

Almost impossible to understand; the top section seems to be about a fictional story of some kind, whilst the bottom section reads like a travel guide(eg: 'adds to the beauty of the place', 'the building forms are interesting and marvelous'). It also lacks any references. <br\>EDIT:Withdraw Videomaniac29 (talk) 07:11, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Videomaniac29, to withdraw say Withdraw at the top of the nomination. I'm guessing that is what you meant with a Keep vote. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 00:38, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. G5 - created and only edited by a banned user. The Bushranger One ping only 18:13, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

1985 Forkhill Westland Wessex crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Military crashes are not usually notable. Possible creation by a sockpuppet of Ryan Kirkpatrick, a banned user Petebutt (talk) 04:59, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I CSD this and two other articles. They're Ryan all right. For instance- 'The two crew of the Gazelles survived the crash but all four on bored the Puma HC1 were killed' here...William 17:54, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:08, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Kamsar Avetisyan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Delete as non-notable. Quis separabit? 00:58, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
I did advance a rationale: NON-NOTABILITY. Perhaps unclear due to misformatting on my part (see above). If more specificity is required then also include NRV and GNG. Quis separabit? 17:36, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Just spouting the names of policies and guidelines is not a rationale for deletion. You need to explain why you don't believe that the subject meets the requirements of those policies and guidelines. For example, have you looked for sources in the Armenian or Cyrillic alphabets, which would be far more likely to exist than sources in the Roman alphabet? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:35, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Nothing at Russian Knowledge (XXG) (see here). Quis separabit? 15:20, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Article at Armenian Knowledge (XXG) (per Google.com translation) has nothing more than in English, thus transclusion would be worthless (see here). Quis separabit? 15:23, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Translation of profile at gradaran.ejmiatsin.am/patm-kamsar-avetisyan.html, which has the lengthiest bio I have seen to date, amounts to this, which is pretty worthless, merely gilding the lily IMO but providing hardly anything that is not available at his long-abandoned stub of an article:

" ...born on May 2, 1905 in the province of Bagrevand Old Town Bayazet His father was a humble craftsman , head buried in the family cares: Teacher Kovkasahay a crucial role in the life of a scientist , usumnatench youth brought to Tbilisi and accommodation ratified in schools. It is the fall of 1915 , was ratified in schools soon will come Avetisyan geographic preferences geography teachers and Jacob A. Abeghian Elibekyan encourage him Verner recalls . "One time I told the class - verjatsri , hugged me and exclaimed Elibekyan the front. "I live, Kamsar, you will be a good geographer ' young into becoming stronger desire to devote themselves to science 1932 , he entered the Yerevan State University , Department of Geography, opened in 1937 and was successfully completed at the date of deposit of the geography of the Kh Abovyan. Institute starts Avetisyan fruitful pedagogical activities that teum for more than three decades: in 1947 he defended his PhD dissertation "Western Armenia nature theme". How to write for teenagers origin scientist thought about a place she explains . "My work is so dasavorvets that I stood very close to the school year, I was spending almost half of the school directing students practice in geography: Here 's an idea occurred to me.


School also wrote "This is how the books were born , the less aoaj enumerated. What is the book's main virtue , whereby they became inseparable companions young reader's knowledge of the rich, inexhaustible resource thanks to the author for his lavishly prum before we go to yerkre scientist - a country floating on seas , oceans , rivers and lakes, flora and fauna of the world , get acquainted with the nations, tribes and tseghakhmberin , material values ​​created by them , admire the monuments of human genius anmer , painting , sculpture, architecture anants values.
However, with all kinds of knowledge and method for providing geographic knowledge is important to have a beneficial Kamsar Verner is distinguished by quality . He tells a simple, homely language , as if the reader is holding intimate conversation with the goal of living things and the constant aroma of the popular word phrases , suitable for the application winged words , proverbs, sometimes novelatip stories help over the years, he has on people's conversations ambarel , anecdotes , aphorisms and a repository knows it is appropriate and timely use.

Scientists separate " weakness " has art in his apartment walls are covered with paintings of great artists chosen Reprints His personal library is rich with famous artists of the monographs of his trip to India he brought hrchakavot Taj - Mahal marble model only " wonder of the world." the book is completely devoted to the works of art is a great love and knowledge described in the "Seven Wonders ", Keopsi pyramid, Alexandria lighthouse, Semiramis dependent Gardens. Rhodes statue, Mavzol king mausoleum , the Temple of Zeus statue and Artemidayi as the " Eighth Wonders " Egyptian Sfinkse , Nefertitin, Ajantayi and Ellorayi zhayrakert monuments , the great Chinese wall , Laokooni ardzanakhumbe , Pisa tower sideways , etc, etc. So Avetisyan works in addition to knowledge , the reader has geghetski palate implant helps a deeper understanding of famous works of art . The upper level of learning is complete devotion to Kamsar Verner , from the student's bench, served in selected science "Zarmanawlioren much I love and I love the magic , science , says scientist - And if I got lucky enough to start with education, then ksksei geography." This book is a gifted scholar and writer's swan song , on which he worked until the last days of his life , from 1976 until October 24 , after the scientist 's death brought an end to his life in the book of his friend, the assistant and secretary, Asprame whose name Kamsar Avetisyan after a side-by -side , marriage is " Hayrenagitakan Etudes 'front." (signed KHACHIK H.)

Quis separabit? 15:39, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete. Odd argument for speedy close, which fails logic of disproof. But, after a thorough search, nothing on GS, including in latin, cyrillic, and armenian alphabets (yes, I tried). Perhaps the mysteries of library holding will substitute for actual relevance, though?Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 14:26, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:16, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Has not played first-team football in a fully professional league or received significant media coverage. I can't see a reason why he may be considered notable. JMHamo (talk) 00:20, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 00:22, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:49, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

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

Non-notable actor with one major role in 2012 (6 episodes) although news searches for this did not provide anything. Considering there is so little information about him and his work, there's isn't much to continue searching. His roles have mostly been minor with nothing for 2013 and one work in progress for 2014. Aside from deleting, the other best bet would be redirecting to Breaking_In_(TV_series)#Recurring_cast. SwisterTwister talk 02:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, | Uncle Milty | talk | 00:14, 29 September 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.
  1. Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker (1992-01-06). "Tough love child of Kennedy". The Guardian. In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice.) is plainly trivial.

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

↑