Knowledge (XXG)

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, consensus that subject does not meet WP:N at current time. Samir 17:05, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Marcelo Menezes Neves (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)

He's certainly the president of a local IIBA chapter, but I don't think this qualifies for default notability. Outside of his activities there I'm unable to find any news coverage, and can't find publishing details on any of his books - although he has been offhandedly mentioned in a couple of IIBA-published books by other authors. Ironholds (talk) 18:35, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:34, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Log/2014 March 15. —cyberbot I _Online 07:01, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
• Delete No significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, and no plausible claim of notability. Cullen Let's discuss it 07:12, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica 08:08, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Strongpoint (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)

WP:NOT#DICDEF Derek Andrews (talk) 15:17, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

• Keep Per WP:DICDEF, "One perennial source of confusion is that a stub encyclopedia article looks very much like a stub dictionary entry, and stubs are often poorly written. Another perennial source of confusion is that some paper dictionaries, such as "pocket" dictionaries, lead editors to the mistaken belief that dictionary entries are short, and that short article and dictionary entry are therefore equivalent." The topic is notable, being documented in detail in sources such as the Combat Leader's Field Guide or Soviet Field Fortifications. The page is a new one and should therefore be developed rather than deleted, per our editing policy. Andrew (talk) 15:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
• Keep According to this document (US Army Field Manual), "strongpoint" is another term for "battle position". However this source differentiates between strongpoint and battle position as different terms. It was in use in the 1920s in the this source. There's an Army Corp of Engineer newspaper(?) called StrongPoint (unrelated probably). There are a lot more sources with Google Books search military strongpoint. I think Andrew is correct it would better to give it a chance to develop given the available sourcing. Note that "Strong points" was previously listed at List_of_military_tactics#Defensive_tactics - if not Keep, worst case looks like fortification for a redirect. -- GreenC 17:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
• Keep, WP:GNG-notable military concept. See books here, here, here; see also sources and discussion above. The nominator should be more familiar with WP:BEFORE. --cyclopia 08:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• Delete "Strongpoint" is a generic military term with no fixed definition at all so this is a dictionary definition The term basically means a relatively strong defensive position which acts to buttress nearby weaker defensive positions (or an area which is poorly suited to defensive tactics), but there's no fixed definition of what a "strongpoint" is. For instance, a "strong point" can be a two man light machine gun team in a foxhole supporting a squad of men in nearby foxholes armed with rifles or an huge underground fortress complex in the Maginot Line. Nick-D (talk) 07:33, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

"Strongpoint" is a generic military term with no fixed definition at all so this is a dictionary definition. The logic there is flawed. A topic doesn't need a "fixed defintion", that is why we have the multiple POV policy. For example some of these sources do show strongpoint has a "fixed" definition (not just a general term), but that fixed definition may change depending on the source. There are multiple POVs over time and place. Finally the strong WP:GNG evidence shows this topic is notable, while DICDEF is more of a content level essay and AfD is a topic level discussion. -- GreenC 02:52, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• Keep I see its listed in the regular dictionary. So this is a real thing. Listing significant military strongpoints throughout history would be a good improvement for the article. Already got the one in the famous Greek battle listed there. 556 Knowledge (XXG) articles use the word "strongpoint". I'll see what I can add to the article. Dream Focus 01:05, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
• Delete. As Nick-D points out above, this is, in fact, a WP:DICDEF. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:23, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
• Keep A military strongpoint is a quite specific thin , discussed in any number of books on tactics. DGG ( talk ) 09:08, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

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

I'm rather conflicted about relisting this. It's quite possible I should have just closed this as keep, but the arguments that this is a dictdef seem pretty strong to me, so I'll just give people another week to work on this. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 23:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

You are suppose to judge consensus, not cast a supervote based on your personal opinion, nor stretch out the debate longer just to hope more people who agree with you show up and comment. Dream Focus 00:36, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Lobbying users to "work on" a certain POV isn't very fair at all. RoySmith why don't you just make a !vote if you have a strong opinion that is not supported by current consensus, as you correctly noted. -- GreenC 02:52, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• Keep per Andrew and DGG; this is a concept amenable to encyclopedic discussion, and the article is not innately a mere dictionary definiton. Having said that, I think the admin's decision to relist this was a reasonable exercise of discretion, since articulate arguments had been offered on both sides and the numerical !vote at the time was 5 to 3, not an overwhelming margin. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:29, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
• Keep: it's a real and important concept that (as far as I know) isn't covered by other Knowledge (XXG) articles, and is amenable to being covered in an encyclopedic fashion. Orser67 (talk) 19:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - This feels like a dictionary definition and I really don't think it is expandable. That said, I'm not sure that deletion would improve the encyclopedia and can see an argument for an IAR keep. Carrite (talk) 22:11, 11 March 2014 (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.

Okay. This AfD has a clear consensus to delete, but I am going to perform the close this way: I am going to move this to the Draft namespace (we have it for a reason, so le'ts use it) and move-protect it to avoid somebody single-handedly moving it back to mainspace. I won't leave a redirect, and I will salt Mariah Carey's 14th Studio Album to avoid it being recreated. → Call me Hahc21 15:55, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Mariah Carey's 14th Studio Album (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)

Don't be fooled by that impressive source list: they aren't about the album. There are two year old publicity quotes about an album she was making two years ago. There are sources about a single that was released two years ago. There are sources that claim that after she releases the album she will tour to support it (not a big surprise). But there's no confirmed title. There's no track list. There's a supposed release date, but it's the fifth announced release data for the album, which means that it has no credibility whatsoever. The album is vapour, the article is about vapour. Per WP:NALBUMS and the ever popular essay WP:HAMMER, this thing needs to be deleted and stay deleted until there is a title and a release date and a confirmed tracklist. —Kww(talk) 22:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Log/2014 March 8. —cyberbot I _Online 22:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
• Delete Per WP:HAMMER. This is a bit of a crystal ball. I wouldn't oppose incubation, but considering that most of the article is padded press releases and speculation, it's probably better to start from scratch (if and) when the album is actually about to be released. Adabow (talk) 22:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
• I feel I should put on popcorn for this one. There's going to be an interesting article section when it finally comes out about the pre-release delays, running through the timeline of each announced event. Until it's out it's a case of wp:CRYSTAL and probably not suitable for inclusion as an article. But there are a lot of links there so Incubate and when it's out we'll have all of them to hand to create a good article. Neonchameleon (talk) 00:43, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• Note that the incubator has been closed as a failed project.—Kww(talk) 01:41, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• Incubation can still be carried out in the Draft namespace. See WP:DRAFTS. Adabow (talk) 03:20, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
• Point, although there are drafts (as Adabow points out). That said, I'd rather redirect than delete because it keeps the log intact for other people to work from when we get an album. Or if. Neonchameleon (talk) 03:52, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• Delete – This article has been the biggest violation of WP:CRYSTAL for the last two years. Drafting can be done as Adabow points out. —Indian:BIO · 05:47, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
• Keep/Incubate - It's being released in eight weeks guys. Less than two months. So many other artists album article are open for way longer prior to release. What's the point of deleting an article that will have to be recreated potentially very soon. What if she drops the track list next week? It will have to be recreated again. As you said, this article has existed for two (because Mariah has pushed it back about three times now), so what will another seven/eight weeks do to harm anyone? Seriously.  — ₳aron 11:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• So your argument is that because two years ago yousomeone created it when youhe should have known better, we might as well keep it around? There's no reason to believe that any of the material in this article has any relationship to the final product, which is why you he shouldn't have created an article about it. WP:NALBUMS is a guideline precisely because of problematic articles like this one.—Kww(talk) 18:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)Note that Calvin999 only created the redirect, not the main body of the article—Kww(talk) 18:23, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• No. How was I supposed to know that she would delay it three times in two years? I'm pretty sure I created it and redirected it anyway. A lot of the info in this article is relevant to it. What's the point in deleting all the info to only have to recreate it again. You know that if this article is deleted, it won't stop IP editors from recreating it under various different titles, which will just being more hassle. I've voiced my opinion, I don't expect you to agree, but I also don't expect you to be sarcastic and trolling. I don't see why this is only becoming an issue now, when the album is not far from being released.  — ₳aron 21:12, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• But, Calvin, you did know that the album didn't have a confirmed title, tracklist, and release data, and I'm certain that you knew that was and is the general standard for when an article should be created. I'm sorry you see sarcasm in my comments: it's actually frustration.—Kww(talk) 03:10, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• There's nothing wrong with creating a redirect for a future article. I'm pretty sure I didn't create it and put info in it straight away. It was so long ago now. Like I said, the album is about to be released very soon. This whole discussion is pointless now. We are arguing over the deletion of something that in a few weeks will be created again. 10:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• Here in statements like this lies the greatest problem pertaining to this article. How do you know that in a few weeks time the album will be released? If there was an official confirmation and track listing and shipment dates and all, then it would not have violated CRYSTAL, however, Carey has delayed the project for whatsoever reasons umpteen number of times to warrant any faith that it can be used to keep the article since there will be an album. —Indian:BIO · 06:07, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• Redirect to Mariah Carey or Delete for now. When name of album is revealed, it can be recreated. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 23:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
• Delete – A new article can be created after the title and track listing is announced. MariAna_MiMi (Talk) 11:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
• Delete – We have waited for two years, and the release was delayed and delayed for times. All I have seen here is WP:CRYSTAL. When the title is officially announced (promoted) and the final tracklisting is revealed, the article can be re-created. Bluesatellite (talk) 01:53, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
• Keep, because it's going to be released shortly and even a quick glance at the article shows that there is plenty of relevant information that makes it a notable topic. Since Kww has noted that this is the fifth announced release date, I would reconsider my stance if this release does not happen as planned. WikiRedactor (talk) 20:15, 12 March 2014 (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. While the keep arguments are solidly rooted in policy (notably the fact that their latest collaborative album with a notable artist charted up to 2nd on Billboard 200, undeniably satisfying point two of our guideline on music-related notability), the delete opinions correctly point out a rather thin amount of coverage; after nine days, I cannot find necessary consensus for deletion, nor evident consensus to keep. I believe the suggestions to merge albums into the group's article should continue to be discussed and will no doubt help improve and confirm the subject's apparent notability. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 03:52, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Ninja Sex 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)

Nominating because this seems to be a non-notable internet based musical group Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:34, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Also I've noticed a major possible conflict of interest. Brian Wecht is a member of Ninja Sex Party. The article was created by on User:Bwecht. It's possible that these are one and the same person based on the similarity of names. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:34, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• Delete. While I am intrigued by the concept, the sources simply aren't there to support an article. I found nothing but trivial fluff at Huffington Post and CraveOnline, neither of which is substantial enough to satisfy the WP:GNG. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:19, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
• Delete. Not seeing sufficient in-depth coverage to demonstrate notability. --DAJF (talk) 06:10, 12 March 2014
• Keep. This group has been around for years and has released three albums. It seems unduly snobbish to single them out this way. Blitterbug 20:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
• Keep This band is notable in many ways. First off, the are part of (Starbomb (album)) which according to the article "The album has managed to hit #12 overall album on iTunes, #1 on iTunes comedy along with #1 rap album and overall album at the time of its release." and was listed on the Billboard charts. Furthermore, if we delete this, we must also delete many other "internet stars" such as (Egoraptor) or Game Grumps), which neither are up for deletion. TheMesquito (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

See WP:OTHERSTUFF. Also I have in fact been looking at those very pages and may nominate them for deletion in the future. The proper response to WP:OTHERSTUFF is to in fact question the notability of all those pages, rather than to let all of them exist. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:09, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I could see why Game Grumps might be nominated for deletion, but it's absurd to nominate Egoraptor. He's a huge name in the world of internet celebrities, up there with PewDiePie and The Yogscast. Hirohiigo (talk) 01:22, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I haven't really looked at his page too much. It might have enough, or could be merged into list of Youtube celebs or something. This is for a later date however. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:58, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

• Keep Ninja Sex Party is a band that has cracked the Top 100 Comedy Albums list on iTunes for both "NSFW" and "Strawberries and Cream". At the time of this writing (March 15th, 2014), the albums are ranked on the number 55 and 56 spots, respectively (1). The band goes on tour and is referenced in WFNX "The Phoenix" Radio's website in Boston, Massachusetts (2)(3). Ninja Sex Party has also worked with popular online animator Arin 'Egoraptor' Hanson, Ross 'RubberRoss' O'Donovan, Chris 'Oneyng' O'Neil, and other notable online animators. Such collaborations occurred in "Dinosaur Laser Fight", and "Unicorn Wizard" which, at the time of this entry, each accumulated over 2 million and 1 million video views, respectively.(4) References below for information above. ADaviii (March 15, 2014 10:05 PM EST). — ADaviii (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

New source was added containing a tweet from the time in which their album "Strawberries and Cream" hit #2 on iTunes in the Comedy category.(5)

New source was added which contains a photo of Ninja Sex Party's"Strawberries and Cream" reaching number 9 on the Billboard comedy charts. (6)

New source added which contains the direct, official Billboard.com archived week of May 4th, 2013 Comedy charts which lists Ninja Sex Party's "Strawberries and Cream" as Number 9 (7) --ADaviii (11:55 PM EST, March 16, 2014)

Connection with Egoraptor or Game Grumps is irrelevant since notability is not inherited. Blogs are also not relevant. I don't know if Popvortex counts as a WP:RS, so I don't think it can be used as a reference to chart performance. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:51, 16 March 2014 (UTC)--Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:51, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

• Keep Notable and covered by reliable media. OccultZone (Talk) 02:19, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

This needs to be established with reliable sources. See WP:GNG. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:51, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

• Keep They were both part of Starbomb, who's album was the number one comedy album on iTunes for a while, as well as number one rap album. Not sure why this is being considered for deletion when you have separate pages for three cast members of "Geordie Shore" going untouched. (And unread.) 81.97.185.38 (talk) 09:49, 16 March 2014 — 81.97.185.38 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete - Despite what a few others have suggested in this discussion, this act definitely does not meet the general guide for notability. The only significant coverage displayed so far in a reliable source was the puff piece on Huffington Post. The Kotaku article used as a reference is more about Game Grumps than this group, and only mentions this band briefly. As to meeting WP:BAND, the closest this group comes to meeting the criteria is the second criterion, I'm not sure that reaching #9 on a weekly chart is sufficient. Other than that this seems to be a total miss. The individuals involved in this band are involved with a couple of other acts that may be notable, but notability isn't inherited, and this band at best warrants a mention in one of the other articles (for Game Grumps or Egoraptor perhaps). -- Atama頭 15:26, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
• Delete Although I am a fan of this band, I have to look at this objectively and I do not see anything that warrants an article on the band for the time being. Perhaps this page can be merged with the Starbomb article. CoverMyIP (talk) 19:27, 17 March 2014 (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, snow close. I'm closing this early per WP:SNOW, as the consensus here from the non-WP:SPA accounts is to delete. No notability has been established that would satisfy our notability guidelines. I have also salted the article accordingly. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:47, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Warx2 (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 has been continuously recreated after being deleted via various speedy deletion criteria. In its current form, I don't see that the article meets any speedy deletion criteria, but it still should not merit inclusion. All links used in the article (added without context) are to unreliable sources, and the only "coverage" I can find online is a relentless attempt to promote the film via press releases and promotional videos. Falls very short of being notable, and I believe it's only on Knowledge (XXG) to increase visibility of the film. -- Atama頭 20:05, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Atama頭 20:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Delete - Not notable, fails WP:MOVIE... JMHamo (talk) 20:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
• Delete - No evidence of notability based on reliable sources that are independent. Also, article is not written in neutral point of view but rather supporting the views of the film-makers. If both issues can be addressed, might be worth keeping. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

This film warx2 deserves to remain on Knowledge (XXG) with its own page article because 1. its features notable person Bishop Thomas Muthee. 2. it includes President Obama. 3. U.S military suicides also included 4. terrorism is also part of this film. 5. more than 3 articles about this film have been provided. guputa1111 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guputa1111 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC) — Guputa1111 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete - Not because it it isn't notable, simply because it's too soon. Hasn't been released yet and hasn't been reviewed. --Auric talk 22:40, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
• Delete under wp:CRYSTAL. The list of reasons to include it above are meaningless. Wait til it's out. Neonchameleon (talk) 01:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

DON'T DELETE WARX2 In fairness this article warx2 needs its own Knowledge (XXG) page now, its notable enough and it is one of a kind film. lets put religious and political biases aside and lets be professionals ! there are a lot of film articles that are not as notable as warx2 but have their own Knowledge (XXG) pages. notability is not an issue with warx2. -Texasebong — Preceding unsigned comment added by Texasebong (talk • contribs) 06:13, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

That's not how it works here. Please read WP:NF to see what the requirements are for retention. Thanks, Schmidt, 06:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• Delete per TOO SOON. Their own press release promised a Fall 2013 theatrical release, and it did not happen. If this is ever released, and if it gets the coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:NF, an undeletion or recreation might be considered. Schmidt, 06:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
• Delete and comments I've removed some duplicated text. Note that Texasebong and Kabibiharris are new accounts with their only contributions being to this discussion, presumably sock or meat. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:56, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

DON'T DELETE ;If you are worried about this film for religious or political reasons ; don't worry I think they (warx2) will want to create awareness not turn off 50+ percent plus of people for being one sided politically or religiously. They will want everybody included. NO ENOUGH REASONS FOR DELETION OF WARX2. -Kabibiharris

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. → Call me Hahc21 16:10, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Institute of World Affairs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is a personal essay. Knowledge (XXG) does not allow original research. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Soft Delete Amazing how hard it is to find articles on a 90 year old organisation! I think this could be saved by someone who knows the field? Neonchameleon (talk) 01:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep - I guessed it would be notable which I linked the ARS. Neonchameleon (talk) 21:27, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Neonchameleon (talk) 01:23, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• Keep If this topic is good enough for Encyclopedia Britannica is it good enough for Knowledge (XXG). The content though is a problem written in the first person like From the reading I have completed on the IWA, it became very clear that.. Who is "I"? Probably copied from somewhere else in a different context. There is sourcing: "Institute of World Affairs" site:.gov and "Institute of World Affairs" site:.edu Looks like the topic passes WP:NGO. AfD is topic-level not content-level. -- GreenC 03:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• Keep Seems to be a notable organization, and if a major print encyclopedia has an article on it, I agree Knowledge (XXG) should. I did some editing and got rid of things like "and as funny as it is –as I write this paper for a college class". The article's creator wrote about himself and how he felt about things, instead of keeping it strictly encyclopedic. Dream Focus 09:59, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
• Keep I did some substantial rewriting to eliminate the personal essay portion. WP as a matter of principle has always from the first included everything with an article in major general encyclopedias. Inclusion in such works is a secure standard of notability: the established experts at traditional encyclopedic notability have judged them notable, and the articles in them are reliable tertiary sources. We include a lot more also, of course, but their coverage is the starting point for ours. DGG ( talk ) 03:33, 11 March 2014 (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. → Call me Hahc21 16:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

List of Academy Award winners and nominees from Commonwealth countries (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 page duplicates material from various other lists, and has to be updated every time one of them changes. It serves no useful purpose in its own right. The things that bring the countries of the Commonwealth of Nations together are not relevant to the film industry in general or to the Academy in particular. There is unanimous agreement at the article's talk page that the article should be deleted. Jack of Oz 19:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• Delete - how patently ridiculous. Why not List of Nobel Peace Prize winners from countries with commercially viable apple industries? The two things are not in any way related. Nationality in general, maybe, as with List of Australian Academy Award winners and nominees but the historical political status of the country from which a nominee/winner hails is just completely unrelated to their being nominated or winning. Is there any suggestion that any nominee's country's Commonwealth-ness has contributed to their subsequent Academy Award win? Stalwart111 06:03, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
• Delete The Commonwealth doesn't have a unified film industry and is seldom considered as a single entity when it comes to discussing film (would people lump Bollywood, Nigerian, and Australian cinema together? Unlikely.) In theory it could be replaced by a list of links to List of Indian Academy Award winners and nominees, List of Australian Academy Award winners and nominees, and similar articles, but I'm not sure that's justified, for the same reason. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:50, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
• Snow delete per all of the above. Two unrelated criteria collide, leaving a train wreck. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:58, 10 March 2014 (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. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:19, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Bilal Al-Balushi (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)

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league or for his country's national team. PROD was contested on the grounds that he has been called up to the Omani national team, but since he has not played, this does not confer notability per WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 18:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• Delete - Has not played in fully professional league nor senior international football, so fails WP:NFOOTY. No indication of significant, reliable coverage of any other achievements to satisfy WP:GNG. Fenix down (talk) 11:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
• Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. JMHamo (talk) 03:11, 16 March 2014 (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. Mojo Hand (talk) 00:44, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Parthajeet Sarma (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)

BLP whose only sources are profile sites (LinkedIn, Goodreads, Changemakers) and thus woefully undersourced. —Jeremy v^_^v 19:43, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• Delete. I agree with nom. Lacks reliable independent sources to establish notability under WP:GNG and fails to state a reason why notability should be presumed in lieu of sources under WP:ANYBIO. Sources cited are all primary and/or questionable and thus, unhelpful. Googling turned up nothing useful. Msnicki (talk) 19:29, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
• Delete Serious tone issues, lack of available sources to establish notability. --j⚛e decker 00:34, 17 March 2014 (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 both. JohnCD (talk) 15:10, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Mutassim Al-Shibli (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)

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he has played in the Omani top flight. As this league is not confirmed as fully pro, playing in it does not confer notability under WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:00, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following article or the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Ibrahim Al-Zadjali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• Delete both - both fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 19:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
• Delete - Has not played in fully professional league nor senior international football, so fails WP:NFOOTY. No indication of significant, reliable coverage of any other achievements to satisfy WP:GNG. Fenix down (talk) 11:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
• Delete both - Fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. JMHamo (talk) 13:31, 11 March 2014 (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. j⚛e decker 00:32, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Âşık Derviş Vahabzade (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'm sure Vahabzade was a great musician, but the sources I can find are all MP3 websites. No book coverage that I can see whatsoever, as either 'Derviş Vahabzade' or 'Âşık Derviş Vahabzade' Ironholds (talk) 18:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• Delete no sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:04, 9 March 2014 (UTC).
• Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:NMUSIC and because, without sources, this is completely unverifiable. Additionally, most of this short article is about subjects other than this musician, so it's not clear what there is to say about him specifically. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:10, 16 March 2014 (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. → Call me Hahc21 16:15, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Alexander Rivkin (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 dedicated coverage of Rivkin can be found in reliable sources. Does not meet WP:BASIC. Binksternet (talk) 18:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• Delete if his work was regarded as so important there would be more GS cites. Fail WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:10, 9 March 2014 (UTC).
• Delete If his work was as important as claimed, there would be more notice of him in quality third-party independent sources. I can't find anything else about him other than what shows here, none of which is particularly notable. This article was previously deleted in 2009 and rose from the dead at the hand of an editor listed as a member of the en:Category:Knowledge (XXG) sockpuppets of MusicLover650. Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
• Delete Essentially promotional article. DGG ( talk ) 02:00, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
• Delete I son't see anything that points to any notability. The list of memberships is kind of a giveaway that this is an overblown article. --Randykitty (talk) 14:43, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
• Delete. Entire source list is ephemera. Agricola44 (talk) 16:02, 12 March 2014 (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. → Call me Hahc21 16:15, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Henry FitzRoy, 12th Duke of Grafton (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)

Hereditary Duke who inherited his title after the House of Lords Act 1999 thus has never possessed the right to sit in the House of Lords. WP is not a family tree, and I see no other grounds for notability beyond his inherited title. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 17:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Keep. This nomination seems to rely on the notion that only Dukes who sit in the House of Lords are notable. (As it happens, there is only one such Duke, and he is on a leave of absence. None of the Royal Dukes now has a seat in the Lords.) But even a Duke has only to meet the general notability guideline, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a passing mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." The point of WP:N is not that subjects of our articles need to deserve an article, but that information about them should be verifiable. Reliable sources are available for this man, however deserving or underserving some might think him. Moonraker (talk) 19:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
• Keep, per Moonraker's rationale.--ColonelHenry (talk) 21:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
• Keep. There is usefulness in having a compete set of entries on hereditary peers, even if some peers are less prominent or noteworthy than others, even when the article must of necessity remain something of a stub. Considering these articles in isolation, i.e. not noting that they are part of a wider series, is mistaken. It strikes me as important to let the relevant wikiproject(s) know about these sorts of deletion proposals.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:35, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• Keep per Jimbo, and due to his independent notability as a concert promoter. Bearian (talk) 20:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
• Delete definitely fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP. Concert promoter activity is not relevant at all, while "being born" cannot mean notability. For the sake of completeness a row in a table is enough. --Vituzzu (talk) 23:03, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
• Keep: whether or not one approves of the hereditary peerage (and baronetage), there are still plenty of people interested in the present holder of an historical title.45ossington (talk) 08:20, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
• Keep, for sake of complete set of entries on hereditary peers holding notable titles. I also like moonraker's rationale. Yes, the new Duke is not particularly newsworthy at present, but we have had entries on most if not all of the dukes, including those short-lived and those with particularly bland private and public lives. As a interested person who writes up biographies of obscure historical figures here and elsewhere (purely for fun), I refer people to Knowledge (XXG) for a general summary. Wikibiohistory2 (talk) 12:14, 15 March 2014 (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 Page already Speedy-deleted

Non-Admin Closure Neonchameleon (talk) 01:31, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

EpicRealms (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'm concerned that this does not meet the notability criteria for web content - there is no evidence that it has 3rd party notice or review from any independent sources, nor does the article suggest any unique content that would make the subject notable. There do not appear to be any awards earned, and the forum has only 12 members. I also am concerned that it contains nothing that would warrant inclusion on an existing article per WP:FAILN. S.G. _ping! 17:39, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - the article has been CSD'd. --S.G. _ping! 17:52, 8 March 2014 (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. j⚛e decker 00:32, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Chlotrudis Society for Independent 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)

This is a local Boston film club whose only requirement is to pay for membership. It was written up at least once in the local Boston newspaper, but most of its 30,000 Google hits are from Knowledge (XXG) itself and Knowledge (XXG) mirror sites, since this club is an awards mill with 35 Knowledge (XXG) articles devoted to its "awards." The page attracts fewer than a dozen edits a year.

It is a detriment to Knowledge (XXG) in that these insignificant fan-club awards clutter up a plethora of movie articles and lists, creating WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:UNDUE issues. And according to WP:CSC, if an entity has an article then evidently we're required to include them in standalone-list articles. (The guideline doesn't address awards lists within movie/actor/filmmaker articles.)

Over the last few days, User:Scolford, one of the group's founders — who named the award after two cats, which indicates how serious these awards are — has been WP:COI advocating for the club at Talk:Chlotrudis Society for Independent Film. He is not an unbiased or disinterested party, and having a Knowledge (XXG) page obviously helps give the club credibility and helps in attracting paying members. He can't talk about the issue objectively and should not be part of this discussion. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comment it's not clear from the nomination statement what policy or guideline(s) this article fails. We don't tend to rely on Google hits, or edit counts to define notability. Its (undesired) inclusion in lists is of no relevance to this AFD. Corollary question, are all 35 award pages also included in this AFD? They don't appear to be tagged for nomination which would be odd if the organisation awarding them is being considered for deletion. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

This editor has a contentious history with me, so I ask that his comments be taken in that perspective. Clearly the issue is notability: I say I found one newspaper article about the group itself and that most of its hits are mirror sites; as well, I refer to the fan club as "insignificant." But in order to address his concern let me state the actual word: I believe the policy it fails is notability.

If this article is deleted, then it would follow that its 35 awards pages would also be deleted. That would seem to go without saying, but, again in order to address this editor's concerns: If this page is deleted, there would be no reason for its 35 related pages to stay. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:09, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

RE: Google hits. I'm a little confused. Knowledge (XXG):Search engine test, a how-to guide detailing a Knowledge (XXG) practice or policy, states, "A search engine tests ... Usage – Identify a term's notability." --Tenebrae (talk) 18:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Contentious by way of you being blocked for launching no less than six personal attacks on me in 24 hours? Yes, that's true. But I simply made a straightforward comment, it's commonplace here to say something like "fails WP:GNG" so the article can be judged against it, rather than simply bloat the nomination with issues that are of no real concern to the notability of this society. And the other 35 pages should be co-nominated, any deletion of the society article will not confer speedy deletion rights to the other articles, they'll need to be nominated after this (should it be deleted). Kill two birds with one stone. Or rather, 36 birds. Re: Google hits, yes, confused would be right, that very same page says "Hit count numbers alone can only rarely "prove" anything about notability, without further discussion of the type of hits, what's been searched for, how it was searched, and what interpretation to give the results." Always worth getting past the headlines of a Knowledge (XXG) "how-to" page! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:35, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Keep sufficient coverage in third-party sources such as Lonely Planet guide and Boston Globe. And if the actors themselves show up to pick up the awards, that makes them generally more notable than the Razzies! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: (blinks HARD) I really hope this is a joke -- and AfD is no place for jokes -- because otherwise I would be startled out of my socks at the implication that an admin with over a hundred thousand edits has as little a handle on the definition of Knowledge (XXG) notability standards as that. Awards do not become notable because actors show up for them or not. They become notable because the outside world notices. I found TWO Google News hits for this organization. Just checking, there are over twenty-five thousand news items for the Razzies. Ravenswing 09:59, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Of course, suggesting the Razzies was less notable was a joke. As I said, the organisation has been covered in both Lonely Planet and The Boston Globe. How many Google hits do you need for notability? Ten? Two hundred? Anyway, we've both offered our opinions, let's move on and do something positive. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
      • You have said that this organization has been covered in Lonely Planet, without supplying any link or citation. Upon attempting to find one, it seems the "coverage" to which you refer is a link on Lonely Planet's website . That link, one of over eleven hundred for "All things to do in Boston," comes with the sole statement "Sorry, we currently have no review for this entertainment-nightlife" and a link to the subject's website. Period. Do you have a genuine citation to proffer? Ravenswing 09:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
        • "Proffered" (sic). Cheers, moving on to other things now, as you seem so angry and hostile, I don't want you getting more upset The Rambling Man (talk) 10:34, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
          • And a three-sentence cite certainly (and explicitly, in the GNG's footnotes) doesn't meet the GNG's requirements that a source discuss a subject "in significant detail." Ravenswing 20:25, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
            • No, after all, it's the only film society noted in the whole book, but it's bound to be pointless in your mind . I've already moved on to better things now, as I said before. How many Google hits do you need for notability? Ten? Two hundred? Stop editing my comments by the way. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
              • That being the third time you've said that, when might we be able to take you at your word? As far as editing comments goes, that's quite permissible when redacting personal attacks from discussion pages, something else of which a veteran admin should not be ignorant. Since your Google crack appeared to be a taunt, I didn't feel the need to respond to it, but since you insist, the answer is simple: enough to establish multiple reliable, independent, published, third-party sources which both satisfy the GNG and any applicable subordinate notability criteria. A veteran admin shouldn't need to be instructed in those either. Ravenswing 17:56, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
                • I answered your questions, you continued to variously edit my own posts, for which you should be blocked, and yet you continue, with bad faith, to accuse me of this, that and the other. And you don't answer the questions posed to you, such hypocrisy. Well played, you must be truly proud of yourself and your edits, but no doubt, you'll remove parts of this post you disagree with, subversively, just as you have done twice already. Applause. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:05, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I am happy to stay out of this AfD discussion. I certainly understand my conflict-of-interest in the decision. I will, however, continue to correct factual errors, such as the fact that I am not one of the founders of CSIF. I have only been a member of the organization since the 7th annual awards. Scolford (talk) 22:15, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

As I've stated, I'm not frequently involved in these discussions and yes, I acknowledge my own WP:COI. However, I do want to highlight Tenebrae's frequent assertion of uncited, entirely uncorroborated, incorrect information. Please, when making any informed opinion, please fact-check what he asserts. I am only here because of his trolling of the Talk page of a page relating to a society I participate in. Scolford (talk) 05:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Coming here to uncivily insult me as "troll" for bringing up commonplace, legitimate issues is hardly "staying out of this AfD discussion." Whether ] is a founder or not is an irrelevant smokesecreen. He's part of the organization and it's in his self-interest to have his club's page on Knowledge (XXG) to help confer it significance and attract paying members. --Tenebrae (talk) 11:49, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• Delete: Sorry, I don't see it. An advanced Google News search turns up only TWO hits for this obscure local organization: a press release from its own website, and a Globe article. Strictly local coverage of its events fails WP:GEOSCOPE, and the GNG requires that there be multiple sources -- if there were fifty Boston Globe articles, and still nothing else from a reliable, independent, third-party, published source that wasn't the Globe, that would not pass the GNG. WP:CLUB requires that, as a non-commercial organization, the organization not only pass the GNG, but that "The scope of their activities is national or international in scale." This organization would fail that test as well, unless it could prove that it has "achieved national or even international notice" or "there is substantial verifiable evidence of coverage by reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area." Add in that this blizzard of subordinate articles is just plain absurd -- and if no one else files a bundled AfD on them, I'll be happy to do so myself -- and there you go. Ravenswing 09:54, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
• Comment. WP:AUD discounts completely local coverage. Does Boston.com count as a regional source? I'm not seeing any coverage in trade press like Variety or The Hollywood Reporter, which is generally a bad sign for notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:50, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• Reply: Not as a separate one, at least: boston.com is the Globe's public access site (as opposed to bostonglobe.com, which is their paywalled site). Ravenswing 01:33, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: It's hard to make a good call here. Here's what I've found. The Phoenix (a Boston weekly alternative paper) has numerous small articles like this; you can Google site:thephoenix.com Chlotrudis for the rest. (That one is written by Peter Keough, whose background is here.) Also, in Google Books, there are a few mentions sprinkled throughout (when you search for Chlotrudis -intitle:Chlotrudis), such as a Christian Bale book, a Guy Madden book, a Michael Haneke book, and a few filmmaking books too. It's too bad that we don't have a broader article that talks about film in Boston, that could encompass festivals and organizations like this one. Erik (talk | contrib) 11:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Scarlett Johnasson too. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I could find no source through Google saying she attended any Chlortrudis ceremony: Scarlett Johansson +"chlotrudis". --Tenebrae (talk) 21:59, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Nobody claimed she had. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

No, there are just some Google Books results that identify books about actors. When they list awards, they list Chlotrudis among them. It's not significant coverage, though. Erik (talk | contrib) 03:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Are you being intentionally disruptive, Rambling Man? What is the point of mentioning Johansson here? Ravenswing 17:56, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Let's assume good faith here and focus on the content. Rambling Man was just pointing out another book about an actor that mentioned Chlotrudis. It is just to show where the award has been mentioned in reliable sources, to get an idea of the universe in which Chlotrudis is mentioned. It's still not significant coverage, though. Erik (talk | contrib) 18:07, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

This editor assumes no good faith and continually adjusts other editors' comments without notification. This will eventually result in an indefinite block for disruptive behaviour, but not one that I'll dish out. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I've informed Ravenswing about WP:TPO in regard to editing your earlier comment. That said, let's please all focus on the content. It is not conducive to do otherwise. Erik (talk | contrib) 19:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. As I said, I've moved on to more constructive matters, I wish you all luck here, tip of the iceberg etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

• Delete per Ravenswing. There doesn't appear to be "significant coverage" as defined by WP:GNG, nor does the organization appear to reach the scope of WP:CLUB.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
• Delete Ravenswing is correct, I can find no evidence that there is any "significant coverage" in any kind of detail to show that this subject is notable. Just being put in a list of awards does not make something notable. If it did everything about celebrities these days would be notable, like what they had for lunch. -DJSasso (talk) 11:41, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
• Weak Delete per WP:CLUB. While this by The Boston Globe is significant coverage, I am not finding "substantial verifiable evidence of coverage by reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area". While Lonely Planet mentions the organization, it is still just a mention. The book results are also just mentions. This at The Phoenix and by Peter Keough (a critic and member of the Boston Society of Film Critics and National Society of Film Critics) would be helpful if it was not just an alternative weekly newspaper from the local area. The trade papers Variety and The Hollywood Reporter usually do a good job mentioning these organizations in some form, but between these two, this organization is only mentioned briefly here. I'm willing to reconsider if additional significant coverage can be indicated, but I am not finding enough to warrant an encyclopedic article. Erik (talk | contrib) 13:43, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
• Delete. As others have pointed out, there really isn't any significant coverage outside of local sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:31, 15 March 2014 (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. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:25, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Alexander Gordon, 7th Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair (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 hereditary Marquess who inherited his title after the House of Lords Act 1999 thus has never possessed the right to sit in the House of Lords. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 17:34, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Keep, sufficiently sourced article via WP:N, WP:RS, WP:V. AfD nomination by a user who seems not to understand WP:GNG and other relevant guidelines.--ColonelHenry (talk) 21:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
• Keep. There is usefulness in having a compete set of entries on hereditary peers, even if some peers are less prominent or noteworthy than others, even when the article must of necessity remain something of a stub. Considering these articles in isolation, i.e. not noting that they are part of a wider series, is mistaken. It strikes me as important to let the relevant wikiproject(s) know about these sorts of deletion proposals.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:35, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
• Keep The article already had sources and here's another. Andrew (talk) 09:14, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• Delete definitely fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP. Deputy Liutenantship is not relevant at all, while "being born" cannot mean notability. For the sake of completeness a row in a table is enough. --Vituzzu (talk) 23:17, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
• Keep: whether or not one approves of the hereditary peerage (and baronetage), there are still plenty of people interested in the present holder of an historical title.45ossington (talk) 08:21, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

  Your argument is invalid, we are not dealing with peerage but with almost empty useless pages. --Vituzzu (talk) 10:52, 14 March 2014 (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. Mojo Hand (talk) 00:48, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Charles Townshend, 8th Marquess Townshend (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 hereditary Marquess who inherited his title after the House of Lords Act 1999 thus has never possessed the right to sit in the House of Lords. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 17:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Keep, sufficiently sourced article via WP:N, WP:RS, WP:V. AfD nomination by a user who seems not to understand WP:GNG and other relevant guidelines.--ColonelHenry (talk) 21:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Keep, per ColonelHenry and per comment of Jimbo Wales at Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Henry FitzRoy, 12th Duke of Grafton and elsewhere: "There is usefulness in having a compete set of entries on hereditary peers, even if some peers are less prominent or noteworthy than others, even when the article must of necessity remain something of a stub. Considering these articles in isolation, i.e. not noting that they are part of a wider series, is mistaken." Moonraker (talk) 06:59, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• Delete definitely fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP. "Being born" cannot mean notability. For the sake of completeness a row in a table is enough. --Vituzzu (talk) 23:18, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
• Keep: whether or not one approves of the hereditary peerage (and baronetage), there are still plenty of people interested in the present holder of an historical title.45ossington (talk) 08:21, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

  Your argument is invalid, we are not dealing with peerage but with almost empty useless pages. --Vituzzu (talk) 10:52, 14 March 2014 (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. JohnCD (talk) 15:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Gregory Kline (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Subject was not a notable individual when he ran for state office in 2006, and he hasn't done anything to gain notability since. I seriously considered speedy-deleting this article under CSD A7, but since the article has been around for eight or nine years, I figured there should be some open discussion on it. —C.Fred (talk) 16:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Delete I would agree. PorcineEnforcer (talk) 17:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• Delete Candiates for state legislatures are not notable, if he had won it would be a different story.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:56, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Breadblade (talk) 16:41, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

David Brudenell-Bruce, Earl of Cardigan (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)

Nothing in the career of this heir to the Marquess of Ailesbury to suggest notability in his own right. Even if he assumes the hereditary title eventually this still carries with it no constitutional significance. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 16:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Keep. Clearly meets the general notability guidelines. Cindy(talk) 19:00, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I don't see how. Secretary and Member of regional Conservative Associations means nothing. Other than that has been Hereditary Warden of a forest, a witness to alleged police brutality, and has been most recently listed as a lorry driver and benefits claimant. Colourful, but none of this strikes me as independently noteworthy.Flaming Ferrari (talk) 19:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Your rationale seems to imply that we have applicable subject-specific or topical notability guidelines, i.e., WP:Notability (lorry driver) or WP:Notability (benefits claimant), criteria of which the subject fails to meet. However, we do have "general notability guidelines", which allow for establishing notability through significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I would also say that a quick online search reveals the existence of additional sources. Cindy(talk) 19:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Keep, per Cindy's rationale. AfD nomination by a user who seems not to understand WP:GNG and other relevant guidelines.--ColonelHenry (talk) 21:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
• Question This man made the news headlines 7 years ago for making a gesture behind the back of David Cameron. There are probably at least 50 independent sources covering the story and guy in question such as and . There is currently no article on this guy, but the feedback I am getting suggests that he too might meet WP:GNG. The clincher for many it seems, would be if he was also a courtesy earl. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 21:52, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

You may wish to read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which shows why this type of reasoning is not generally well thought of. Whether we should or should not have an entry about some completely unrelated subject with very distinct differences from this case is interesting, but not relevant for the question of whether we should have this article.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:45, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Keep. There is usefulness in having a compete set of entries on hereditary peers, even if some peers are less prominent or noteworthy than others, even when the article must of necessity remain something of a stub. Considering these articles in isolation, i.e. not noting that they are part of a wider series, is mistaken. It strikes me as important to let the relevant wikiproject(s) know about these sorts of deletion proposals.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:33, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• Keep per Jimbo, and as I've written at another AfD, earls are pretty high up in the aristocracy. Bearian (talk) 20:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
• Delete definitely fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP. Local politician and maybe someone who did a certain...gesture: not relevant at all, also "being born" cannot mean notability. For the sake of completeness a row in a table is enough. --Vituzzu (talk) 23:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Vituzzu:Can you please point out how this article "fails WP:BLP"? Violations would need to be quite egregious for WP:BLP to be a valid deletion rationale. I'm not even seeing any minor violations. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
• Keep: whether or not one approves of the hereditary peerage (and baronetage), there are still plenty of people interested in the present holder of an historical title.45ossington (talk) 08:23, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

  Your argument is invalid, we are not dealing with peerage but with almost empty useless pages. --Vituzzu (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

• Weak Keep -- I read this as a case of a man with an estate that is in grave financial trouble and in dispute with the estate trustees over their attempts to recuse something for the family. That may bne notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:05, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
• Keep. I think I'm coming down on the side of keeping articles on peers or their heirs, whether or not they sit in the House of Lords, as all their predecessors did (and therefore all meet WP:POLITICIAN) and it would be slightly odd and not of value to the project to break the chain of Knowledge (XXG) articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:46, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
• Keep, per Cindy, et al. Clearly meets WP:GNG. "Fails WP:BLP" is mildly amusing; while violations should always be corrected/removed immediately, deleting the entire article is only done in the most extreme circumstances. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:08, 20 March 2014 (UTC)