Svoboda | Graniru | BBC Russia | Golosameriki | Facebook
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 August 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 7 August 9 August >

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. after userfying to User:Razlem/Angos. This is not a long-term solution: I draw the article author's attention to WP:FAKEARTICLE: "Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles, old revisions, or deleted content, or your preferred version of disputed content." JohnCD (talk) 19:30, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Angos (constructed language)[edit]

Angos (constructed language) (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)

Zero notability Angos falls afoul of WP:N. In the article's talk page the language's lack of notability is explored in depth. Out of the seven total references (one appears in both References and External links), two are from the language's official website, one is a YouTube video made by User:Razlem, one is a personal website, one is a private wiki, one is a link to Reddit, and one is an article from the Journal of Universal Language. It is my understanding that Reddit is essentially a large forum, and any user can create a group there, so the presence of one for Angos is no indication of notability, and it appears that Razlem wrote more than half of the posts there in any case. As the the journal article, it turns out that the journal is published by Sejong University, which created Unish, and the the journal itself appears to be a vehicle for the promotion of that language. The article itself is a list of conlangs which have words of Uralic origin, and the citation for the Angos material is "personal communication". Hermione is a dude (talk) 08:52, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of notability is discussed in depth until the publication in the Journal of Universal Language.
The main reference is a complete grammar, published by the author of the language, which other notable constructed language pages have (Ro, Sona, Unish, Idiom Neutral). What those pages lack, however, is a reliable, secondary source that accords with Wikipedia's standards, which Angos does have.
The reddit link is provided for additional information about the language and its community, not as a reference for the article. Of the 17 reddit posts on /r/angos, 9 were submitted by razlem (who, in fact, did not create the subreddit), 8 were submitted by others.
The claim that the Journal of Universal Language is a vehicle for the promotion of Unish is completely unfounded.
What makes personal communication an invalid method of gathering information?
Razlem (talk) 00:58, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, just because no one replied to your update on the talk page does not mean that there is consensus about the article's notability. Given the three month gap between that update and the next youngest, it seems more likely that no one was paying attention to the article anymore. Your comment about Ro, Sona, etc is an example of WP:OSE; if you find those articles to be a greater priority than Angos then you are free to nominate them. It's interesting that you list Unish as an article with no proof of notability, since all of its citations are from the Journal of Universal Language. Why is that not proof of notability for Unish when it apparently is for Angos, unless you actually do believe it exists for the promotion of Unish? Edit: the personal communication source with the creator of the language makes the article even more problematic because it suggests that there is no other source save for the author. In any case I believe that article is a good candidate for deletion, too, although the circumstances for Ro and the others are different and I do not believe deletion would be proper for them. Finally, regarding the Reddit page, nine is indeed greater than eight, and you said on the talk page that the Reddit page was there to establish notability. Hermione is a dude (talk) 01:52, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was my understanding that when a secondary source was provided, the language would become "notable". I find it hard to believe that the page was not visited by anyone else involved on the talk page for 3 months, given the extent of the discussion. I find WP:OSE to be a strange policy for Wikipedia; doesn't it conflict with WP:NOT? The Unish references are unreliable because they were published by Sejong University, the developer, making the journal a primary source in this case (if I'm not mistaken). But the journal's reliability applies only for Unish. Any other languages detailed in the journal makes it a secondary source for those languages (and seeing as none of the 15 articles in the past 1.5 years have been about Unish, you would be incorrect to assume that it exists for the language's promotion). Personal communication was not the only source. Listed in the article's reference section, page 142, is a link to the wiki. Then I can dissect the Reddit posts. Of the 9 posts made by razlem on /r/angos, 5 were text posts, 4 were links to Angos material. Of the others', 5 were links to Angos material, 3 were text posts. More than half of the Angos material was submitted to the subreddit by users other than razlem. During the discussion I had with IJzeren Jan about using Reddit and Facebook as a reference, I assumed I could use the readership as proof that people that I was not affiliated with were using the language and disseminating material with others. IJzeren Jan then showed me why these could not be used as sources of notability (which I still do not quite understand), and I ceded the argument. Razlem (talk) 03:02, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to point out that WP:OSE is not a policy. Rather, it is partly a rebuttal of the fallacious argument that an article's deletion is somehow unfair or improper because of the presence of some other articles on the site. You haven't violated any rules by making that argument, but it's unlikely to persuade anyone. You make an interesting point about the Journal of Universal Language, and I admit to not having read many papers there. My suspicion was triggered by its not being cited or mentioned anywhere except here, including journal ranking sites and JSTOR. Also, you say that the paper also cites the wiki, but the wiki is listed as the work of Angos' creator. Furthermore, the wiki's member list lists you as "founder and creator", and you seem to be responsible for almost every edit there. Are you the creator of Angos? That is definitely something that should be disclosed. Hermione is a dude (talk) 13:28, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How else is one supposed to get accurate information about a language? If you wanted to know more about a language, you would almost always choose discussion with the creator over a secondary/internet source. I am the creator of Angos, and that has little to do with this language's notability. All the information in Angos (constructed language) is presented clearly and objectively, and referenced where appropriate. Like I said in my previous response, when I had started writing the wikipedia article on Angos, I had been assuming I could use the online readership as evidence of notability. I was informed I could not, and the article was proposed for deletion. But now, the article has a secondary source by a reputable author unaffiliated with the creator or the language itself. Razlem (talk) 16:34, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that you are the only source of almost all information about Angos; WP:N states: "Material available from sources that are self-published, or primary sources, or biased because of a conflict of interest can play a role in writing an article, but it must be possible to source the majority of information to independent, third-party sources." That clearly isn't the case here, as the relevant part of article you cite is mostly a quote of your wiki and a list of words you emailed to the author. The coverage of Angos here is trivial. Hermione is a dude (talk) 06:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also a little bothered by your not disclosing your being the creator of Angos earlier. You aren't always required to tell people that you are intimately connected to an article that you're editing, but you have written most of the material on the page and cite yourself extensively, meaning that you may be falling afoul of WP:SELFCITE.Hermione is a dude (talk) 06:48, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The wiki is referenced by the journal article, meaning it was reliable enough to the author to be used for a linguistic study. The grammar is a published document available to the public domain (meaning everything in the article can be checked for accuracy by anyone). There should be no problem with me writing the article (though I thought it was fairly obvious I was the creator); everything is objectively written and referenced. And I have not taken control of the article; anyone can add information or criticism to the page so long as it's referenced. I would also like to request that Ro, Sona, Kēlen, Láadan, Tsolyáni, Barsoomian, Teonaht, and Unish be grouped with Angos in the deletion process, for reasons of sourcing and notability outlined in this discussion. I feel like Angos has received unequal treatment in this manner. Razlem (talk) 16:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Posting your own material on Scribd does not make it published. If you think those other articles merit deletion then you are free to nominate them yourself - I definitely agree that some should go! This page isn't about those other languages, though, and it's rare for multiple articles to be "bundled" (I've only seen it happen once). Also, please be aware that no one is picking on Angos, it has been nominated for deletion because I don't believe it meets the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. Hermione is a dude (talk) 20:49, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Those conlangs have few to no secondary sources, yet they have been on Wikipedia for years. Angos has one notable, reliable secondary source added several months ago and it's branded for deletion. This article has received more critical attention in the last half year than some of these pages have for almost a decade (Láadan). From my point of view, it has been unfairly scrutinized. Since it is unlikely that the article will be up much longer, I'm going ahead and nominating the above pages for deletion, citing the deletion of this article as precedence. Razlem (talk) 21:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your tone suggests that you think you're, I don't know, taking revenge on Wikipedia. You should know that if those articles are nominated for deletion it is unlikely that they'll be rushed through the process. This isn't a court, precedence doesn't matter. Again, I refer you to WP:OSE, as you are making the argument in the negative now.Hermione is a dude (talk) 22:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, it isn't true that the article has been subjected to excessive scrutiny. The talk page for Angos is mostly people trying to explain Wikipedia policy to you and show why your citations are not usable.Hermione is a dude (talk) 22:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that. What I don't understand is why this has not also happened for the pages listed above. I have no interest in seeking "revenge on Wikipedia". What irks me is that pages in the exact state (and/or worse) as Angos have been virtually untouched for years. I believe the argument of OSE is valid in this case. I'm not saying that every conlang should have its own page, but I have shown the journal article to be a reliable source, which is more than some other conlang articles have. This is a surmountable problem, and since the information on the page is not harming anyone, verifiable, but not yet notable, I move to keep the page. The language community isn't dead, and notable sources may come up in the future. (also there's a Japanese version of the article???). Razlem (talk) 23:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I don't have any obligation to nominate every bad article for deletion. What dragged me out of lurkerdom here was a combination of things, not just the clear lack of notability. I see no indication that Angos will ever reach the low bar that's been established for that, and even if it were, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and the article's harmlessness is not a valid reason for keeping it. Hermione is a dude (talk) 00:05, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, that journal article is not significant coverage. It is slightly more than an admission of the fact that Angos exists. Hermione is a dude (talk) 00:09, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball does not apply here. None of the information put forth in the article requires a future event to verify. It's already all verifiable. And this factors into WP:NOHARM: "As for articles about subjects that do not hold to our basic tenets (verifiability, notability, and using reliable sources), keeping them actually can do more harm than one realizes – it sets a precedent that dictates that literally anything can go here. (See below for that.)" Angos has verifiability and a reliable source down, all it needs is notability. The conlangs I've noted above? Some of them are verifiable at least. But some don't have any sources at all! Also, the article is significant coverage. It is more than a trivial mention or an admission of existence. It was one of a number of languages focused on by the author. In the article it mentions the author and gives a brief introduction, in addition to the data from the linguistic survey. Razlem (talk) 00:37, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but can you please stop complaining about other articles? If you think they're so much worse than Angos and need immediate attention, go ahead and nominate them so they can be discussed on the appropriate page. Insisting that a two paragraph summary is significant coverage does not make it true, by the way. Hermione is a dude (talk) 00:58, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well this is an interesting twist... What if I've found another secondary source, but it's in Japanese? Razlem (talk) 23:25, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That article looks like someone's personal site and wouldn't be a usable source or link. I don't mean to disparage other Wikipedias' editors, but many of them aren't as well cared for as the English Wikipedia. I believe there is a policy somewhere relating to this. Hermione is a dude (talk) 00:05, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You may be right, but this shows that there may be other reliable secondary sources out there. Razlem (talk) 00:37, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW, this is not an analysis or description of the language; it is a translation of content from angoslanguage.wikispaces. Translation of the first sentence: "Angos language (Angos means 'man-made language' with 'language' added to the [Japanese] name) is a universal constructed language begun in 2011, namely the type with vocabulary assembled from world languages." (Compare this from angoslanguage: "Angos is a constructed universal language created in 2011. It is an a posteriori language, meaning the majority of the vocabulary is borrowed from existing languages.") Cnilep (talk) 01:23, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Inclusion in one single source independent of the creator, especially one whose reliability is questionable, is not sufficient for this conlang to meet WP:GNG. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Given its editorial board (which includes Jared Diamond, UCLA), I assert that the publication is both reliable and notable. Razlem (talk) 21:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Angr is questioning your reliability. Also, it doesn't really matter if Jared Diamond is connected to this journal, the article would fail to establish notability even if Diamond had written it himself!Hermione is a dude (talk) 22:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake, I thought Angr was referring to the reliability of the journal. Razlem (talk) 23:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, that the author of the article is also the author of the language, that's something I have never actually doubted at all. But I can see no harm in that either. If you look at, for example, the editing history of Lingua Franca Nova, you'll notice the same thing. As long as the article is written in a factual, neutral way, the question who wrote it shouldn't matter at all.

I have already exposed my views on the talk page. What originally raised my suspicion was the fact that a language that had been started only a year earlier claimed to have a certain number of fluent speakers. I know by experience that creating a language complete enough to be fully functional and doing that job decently is virtually impossible in one year's time, but creating a language ánd gathering a group of people ánd them becoming proficient in it, that's something I really refuse to believe. That's why I asked a few questions and raised various issues regarding notability and verifiability. It must be acknowledged that Razlem has been very cooperative and done his best to address these issues.

Let me note that Alan Libert – university professor in (IIRC) Manchester, author of several books about constructed languages – is definitely an authority in the field, and therefore his article surely counts as a reputable and reliable third-party source. There's little point in denying that. As for the "Journal of Universal Language", well, I am not familiar with myself, but if it's being published by a university, I can see no reason to discard it. In my view, the article undoubtedly adds up to notability. The question is only if one source with non-trivial coverage (albeit not entirely non-non-trivial either) is really enough. And this, I'm afraid, is the biggest problem here. One of the few criteria that seem to be generally accepted when it comes to constructed languages, is that two reliable third-party sources with non-trivial coverage of the subject are the absolute minimum. The Libert article is a good source, but not enough to tipple the balance. Besides, it provides very little actual information about Angos itself and only lists a few Uralic words. References to the article were added to bits of text that were already here before the article was written.

All the rest is either original research or supported by primary sources only. And that is a bad thing. Just imagine what would happen if the author of the language forgets to pay his bill and suddenly the whole website is gone? Or - and this happens more often - after a few years gives up on the project and starts something new? Then Wikipedia is stuck with an article nobody cares for, with hardly any proof at all that its subject has even ever existed. That's why information on Wikipedia should be either unquestionable or verifiable, also on the longer term. Sure, we have to be realistic, and writing an article about a constructed language without resorting to primary sources at all is hard. But at least the basic framework should be based on reliable sources, and primary sources should only be used for filling the gaps (f.ex. a description of the grammar). Otherwise, what you'll get is the strange situation that the only sources of information are: a) a website, b) a WP article that merely duplicates information from that website, and c) the author of both – in other words, all information goes back to one person only, one who has an obvious conflict of interest to that. In such a situation it may happen that external sources start copying this information without actually verifying it, and subsequently these sources are used as proof that it is true. In other words, the article itself becomes the source of all notability AND the source of all evidence that the information contained in it is correct. Obviously a situation we want to avoid.

Now, I have all reason to believe that Ben Wood is a friendly and honest person, and I am perfectly willing to take his word for anything he writes. He has done an amazing piece of work and I definitely wish him success. It's not like I really WANT this very nicely written article deleted either. But I also believe that this article in its current form has no chance for survival, because notability is still below the point of reasonable doubt AND verifiability is a major issue. My suggestion would be: don't delete this page, but turn it into a subpage of Razlem's user page (f.ex. User:Razlem/Angos), removing the categories of course. Let it hang in there for a while, and once more sources turn up, then I think it could be adapted and placed back. —IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu? 01:05, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding OSE: the languages mentioned here (Sona, Ro, Láadan etc.) all have a long history. Remember, if an article does not provide sources, that does not mean they don't exist. Verifiability does not necessarily mean that everything must be offered on a plate. There's plenty of literature where these languages are discussed.

I also disagree with the "no harm" argument. One example is Slovio. When this article first appeared, the only source was the website of the language, which was full of exorbitant claims and outright lies about its successes. Shortly afterwards a few articles in the press appeared, usually multiplying this false information, Wikipedia articles were translated into other language editions, and all this unverified info started spreading like a virus. Even today there are still articles in 31 language editions (much more than there have been users, ever), and even now that the language is dead, it keeps appearing in publications as if it were something new and unique. In the meantime there have been enough publications about the subject to make its notability unquestionable, even though the whole thing was based on lies. And this is precisely the sort of thing that Wikipedia should NOT be doing. —IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu? 01:49, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hermione is a dude (talk) 22:46, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've relisted the debate because so few people have commented, and of those who have only one has actually done the bold thing. I have a feeling that all the stuff that's been written already might be scaring some editors, or they may assume that there has already been significant input from the community. For the skimmers: so far only five people have commented here, including myself and the creator of the article in question. Hermione is a dude (talk) 23:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. A Google search for ("angos" language) yielded nothing that would tend to confer notability. I ran a JSTOR search for (angos language), and none of the titles that I found suggested that they might cover Angos-the-language in any depth; unfortunately, I don't have access to the articles, but I saw nothing that I'd have been inclined to investigate if I had.
The Libert article in Journal of Universal Language consists of three paragraphs (one almost entirely a quote from Angos designer Benjamin Wood) and two short tables; it only addresses one small aspect of Angos, viz., that it contains some words with Uralic roots, in the course of a survey of many artificial languages. This does not meet the standard of "significant coverage" at WP:GNG.
If Angos acquires a community of speakers or body of literature that draws in-depth coverage in the popular or academic media, a WP article will be justified. For now, it's WP:TOOSOON. Ammodramus (talk) 23:37, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, I wasn't aware this was an option until you had brought it up. Razlem (talk) 15:34, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It looks more official. :P Hermione is a dude (talk) 21:01, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't "Userfy" be the appropriate word to use when recommending a move to the creator's user page? Ammodramus (talk) 00:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Probably, I'm not really familiar with Wikipedia jargon. In any case, would the nominator have a problem with it if somebody moved both the article and the corresponding talk page to Razlem's user space? That way we preserve the page history and the discussion (which contains quite a lot of stuff I've written myself). The resulting direct should of course be deleted, and the categories should be removed. —IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu? 18:13, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with that. A user space is a private spot for experimentation and preservation, so it would be appropriate, although the text was already copied to Frath so there wouldn't be any loss if it were deleted. My concern isn't that Angos stuff is being hosted on Wikipedia, but that this article's purpose is to establish Angos' notability rather than educate people about something that is already notable. Hermione is a dude (talk) 20:31, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I've taken the liberty to make the move myself. The page Angos (constructed language) can safely be deleted now. —IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu? 22:44, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:SNOW The Bushranger One ping only 04:28, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heidelberg Sharks[edit]

Heidelberg Sharks (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 found nothing that shows notability. The only two results in Google News were taken down for some reason. SL93 (talk) 22:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:15, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article itself is unsourced. Own search shows there was activity in around 2006, but there is no evidence that the club exists anymore or has ever actively played in an official league. There is a posting in a forum from 2005, that shows that one team from Heidelberger TV has used the name Sharks. [1] --Ben Ben (talk) 11:10, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It was classed as mid-importance by someone that has not edited for 2 years, so we can't ask why. Anyway, no notability shown nor easily found. Agathoclea (talk) 13:24, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was the person who created this page years ago. At the time the club (and the sport) were on the move in Germany so it was fair to start the ball rolling. I think the club is still going. I don't mind the article being deleted or the info moved to the "Rugby League in Germany" page. Same with the Rohrback Hornets page too. Also you have put this discussion in the WikiProject Deletion Rugby Union category when this has nothing to do with Rugby Union as it is all Rugby League, a different sport. Poiuytre (talk) 13:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That was done by someone else. SL93 (talk) 13:45, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Poiuytre, I have removed the Rugby Union deletion sorting. There is no delsort page for Rugby League, but on the project page is an Alert bot running. --Ben Ben (talk) 14:27, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 17:58, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seven Hills Observatory[edit]

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

Subject of article is an amateur observatory in Kearney, Nebraska. Google searches for ("seven hills observatory" kearney) produced no evidence of in-depth coverage: mentions in lists of events and of things to do in Kearney, but nothing detailed. A Google News search for the same terms yielded one story in the local newspaper, the Kearney Hub. Searching the Hub website for ("seven hills observatory") yielded a number of brief mentions, but only two stories of substance: one from 2013, and one from 2006. I don't believe, however, that such local coverage suffices to establish notability; and neither story mentions anything accomplished by the observatory that might attract wider attention (e.g. comets discovered). Searching JSTOR for ("seven hills observatory") produces no results. The lack of significant coverage in media outside of the immediate Kearney area suggests that this fails WP:GNG. Ammodramus (talk) 22:18, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. A search for "Mark Urwiller" (the observatory's owner) turned up a spectacular aurora borealis photo that got picked up by the CBC [2] and NBC [3]. Also there's something in the Bird Watcher's Digest (but only a snippet is visible at GBooks, and it may relate primarily to birding rather than skywatching). [4] So far, that's all I've found outside of local Kearney coverage. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:13, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additional comment: A 1995 AP story also reports about Mark Urwiller and his telescope in some detail.[5] The cumulative effect of all these local articles might support the inclusion of Urwiller as a (locally) notable teacher at Kearney High School (where he evidently still teaches [6]). So how about a selective merge to adapt some of this content and sources for use in the article about the high school? --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:21, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: no evidence of significant discoveries, unique capabilities, or association with a prominent institution. It's just a private observatory with a modest telescope and doesn't satisfy WP:GNG. Praemonitus (talk) 23:38, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:13, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:13, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 17:59, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of trademarks using english nouns[edit]

List of trademarks using english nouns (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)

Emotionally I like the idea, because it is fun. Intellectually this is not a topic for an encyclopaedia because it lacks notability. Fiddle Faddle 22:01, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:12, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:12, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, indiscriminate without any informational value. There is nothing interesting about a trademark consisting of or including a noun or any other kind of word extant in the language. postdlf (talk) 02:05, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both by WP:OR. You can't just put together two qualifications, in this case "trademark" and "English noun", and create a notable list. You might as well have "List of American presidents with four letter last names" or anything else you make up. Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:46, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I had not even noticed the use of "noun". What next List of trademarks using english verbs. I also just noticed that the capitalization of the title is wrong, English should be capitalized.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:04, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Indiscriminate and blatantly original research. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - yes, it is informational, but not a very useful observation. Virtually all "strong" trademarks and brand names use common nouns; in fact, it is a doctrine of intellectual property law, see Trademark dilution. To make a complete list would go on for hundreds of entries, and not inform our readers of anything unusual. Bearian (talk) 22:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 20:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dao Thanh Oai line[edit]

Dao Thanh Oai line (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 non-notable OR. The only reference is a 2013 self-published webpage hosted by Cut-the-Knot. Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 20:58, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, as OR and failure of WP:GNG. Deadbeef 21:11, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I found no reliable coverage. SL93 (talk) 23:04, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:11, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 19:02, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mason Robinson[edit]

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

No indication that this individual meets WP:GNG or WP:NGRIDIRON. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 20:57, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:08, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:08, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:08, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. There does not seem to be agreement on whether WP:BIO1E applies here, nor on whether the press coverage available confers notability. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:03, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Wyda[edit]

Rob Wyda (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)

BLP1E, does not meet GNG. The assumption seems to be a BLP1E relating to being involved with Guantanamo Bay. However, he wasn't the counsel-in-charge in any of the cases, he's not the Judge Advocate General, and he wasn't the only judge at Bagram. As he was a sitting district judge in the US at the time (per article), he could not have spent considerable time there. He was also not the only prosecution assistant. I did find a source, but it's wholly publicity-based, and even it does not make much mention of his service. Of the sources in the article, 1 and 2 are dead links, 3 gives him one sentence out of an entire newsletter from 2004 (and the website is private as of 2009), and 4 is an obit. MSJapan (talk) 20:27, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:07, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:07, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military and combat-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:07, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:BLP1E does not apply to dead people. The "BLP" part of the policy which has been cited actually stands for Biographies of Living People. -- Kendrick7talk 05:13, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - How is that a reason to keep? WP:BIO1E would apply, and the crux of both of them is notability for one event. They are the same policy. MSJapan (talk) 19:45, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment None of those positions confers notability, and he was actually (and clearly indicated as being) in the Naval Reserve JAG, so I hope you didn't change that. Those groups are administered differently and have entirely different people as commanders.MSJapan (talk) 06:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You clearly don't understand deployment, then. Deployed reserves are still reserves; active duty does not change their status, e.g., Wyda was not transferred from reserve JAG to Navy JAG and commissioned there; he was always in reserve JAG (as the newsletter indicates) because the NR Chief JAG pictured therein is not the same one as we have an article on for regular Navy. Moreover, active service alone does not confer notability (see WP:SOLDIER, which Wyda doesn't meet either). MSJapan (talk) 21:57, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of which really matters since he clearly meets the WP:GNG guideline. -- Kendrick7talk 22:54, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - I don't believe he does (which is why I nominated the article for deletion in the first place), and thus far, your keep argument is that "this is BIO, not BLP." Thus far, he hasn't met WP:POLITICIAN, WP:SOLDIER, or GNG. Interviews with the subject are apparently considered primary sources, and thus do not fall under usable material for GNG. See WP:PRIMARY, which says "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources." (emphasis mine), and also "Do not base an article on primary sources." Could you provide a policy-based reason for your keep vote? MSJapan (talk) 13:18, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No indications of notability, and one of several articles on (then in this case) living people created by Geo Swan as WP:COATRACKs to criticise the Guantanamo Bay prison camps. Nick-D (talk) 06:11, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Be that as it may, I've now extensively cleaned up and re-sourced the article in light of this AFD discussion. I didn't notice any criticism of Gitmo; the article rather reflects that Judge Wyda was quite proud of his work there. -- Kendrick7talk 01:24, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No, he means the article author created the article to voice his own criticism. Also, none of Wyda's coverage extends outside of local news - everything is in Pittsburgh or the local county. Objectively, however, in almost all of the sources (save "Wyda out" and the one posthumous article), Wyda himself is providing the information in the articles. Therefore, the sources fail GNG because they are not "independent of the subject". His election margin is trivia which does not affect his notability, nor does withdrawing from a campaign. MSJapan (talk) 06:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article appears to have originally been created to provide a platform for posting this guy's rather unattractive comments regarding Guantanamo Bay (which was a high proportion of the article's content). The correct place for this would have been in a central article on the Guantanamo Bay regime and related trials in which they could have been placed in whatever context exists. Nick-D (talk) 07:07, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (in reply to MSJapan above) Claiming that newspapers are not "independent" of a person purely by virtue of interviewing that person is as strained a reading of WP:GNG as I've ever seen. -- Kendrick7talk 18:07, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - When every substantial piece of information about the subject is supplied directly by the subject in conversation with the reporter, that material is not independent of the subject (it's likely not neutral, either). I could claim anything I wanted about myself consistently (like this actual situation). Note that independent verification found otherwise. That is why it's not really reliable - no reporter has ever done research to verify what Wyda did or said; they all spoke to him directly and used whatever he said. MSJapan (talk) 21:57, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't understand why you think these various reporters from multiple newspapers, covering the comings and goings of the elected head of a local court system over the course of the past 10 years, which seems to me to be a standard part of their journalistic duties during war time, is actually some vast conspiracy of journalistic malfeasance. -- Kendrick7talk 22:54, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (In reply to Nick-D now far above) I was just reading an article by travel writer Michael Meyer that made me think of this article's relationship to User:Geo Swan. "[W]riting a book is like building a boat: Once it’s launched, all that matters is whether it floats, not what its creator intended to craft."[7] -- Kendrick7talk 02:22, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable enough either as a civilian lawyer or as a military officer. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:50, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Plenty of independent press coverage shown in the article and notable for Bagram and Guantanamo, so not BLP1E. JASpencer (talk) 07:03, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per JASpencer. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:35, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Local elected official, see WP:POLITICIAN for guidance. Coverage does not seem to meet the "significant" part of WP:GNG. If this article does, it would seem that every local district court judge would meet the criteria for inclusion, and that is likely not the case. EricSerge (talk) 02:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No, the reason he received so much significant coverage was due to his dual role as elected public servant and as a voluntary military investigator during wartime. Let's not pretend that every judge's leaves of absence would ever be of the same import. -- Kendrick7talk 03:11, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - minor official lacking "significant coverage in reliable sources" to constitute notability per WP:GNG (a few brief articles in minor newspapers hardly equals "significant coverage"). [Kendrick7 pls don't bother reply to me too, it really is unseemly replying to every delete vote. You had your say, now let the rest of us do so in good faith pls]. Anotherclown (talk) 13:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because the subject is notable, as indicated by the many sources building this article, and because contrary to a few highly partisan comments above, the article is written in a neutral and objective fashion. The notion that a wholly dispassionate article about a judge at Guantanamo should be deleted, because it could lead some to criticize the prison (as if criticism really depended on this article), is as idiotic as it is insidious in an encyclopedia. -Darouet (talk) 16:34, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, the Judge was not a Judge while serving at Gitmo. If he had been a judge in a terrorism case, that might confer notability. He worked part time assisting the US Gov in building terrorism cases against suspects. He was a Commander in the US Naval Reserve. He served as an officer in the Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, the Navy's legal arm. None of the sources say he worked as a military judge in a terrorism case. There are thousands of JAG officers, and hundreds working on terrorism cases. That work does not make them inherently notable. EricSerge (talk) 19:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Dusti*Let's talk!* 00:45, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Planted motif search[edit]

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

This article appears to be a How To, or original Research, perhaps a treatise for a dissertation. What it is not, certainly as it stands, is an article for Wikipedia. The topic area itself may be notable, though the article does not assert this in a meaningful way. WP:TNT feels appropriate. At the very least it requires discussion. Fiddle Faddle 20:14, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Withdraw on the basis of the work done in the article to render the lead and other parts to a state where notability is asserted. Fiddle Faddle 21:29, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:05, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – this article is clearly notable as there are a fair number of papers that have been published on the subject. I agree with the nom that this article needs extensive editing to focus less on "How To" and more on "Why". I have edited the lead so that the importance of this subject is hopefully now clearer. Boghog (talk) 05:49, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 20:03, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MobileIron[edit]

MobileIron (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 don't see evidence for notability here. The refs are either mere notices , or just repeating what the company says of itself. DGG ( talk ) 06:09, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 12:41, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 12:42, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 12:42, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as just an ad. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:46, 25 July 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Promotional tone is not a reason to delete. There is very good evidence of notability in a good number of the 11 refs in the article. I consider the following reliable sources: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]. Press releases are not reliable sources but if a respected publication is willing to parrot a press release and a reporter puts their name on it, I consider it reliable. What's your criteria DGG (talk · contribs)? ~KvnG 00:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If a publication parrots a press release, that's churnalism, and it's possible that the publication never actually met WP:RS in the first place. And I don't think articles of churnalism can be considered independent sources. Better sources avoid press-release churnalism. Please find us a New York Times or Wall Street Journal article about the company if possible. Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 23:09, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 19:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Promotional tone is absolutely a reason to delete. However, it passes WP:GNG handily. I'm borderline here as to whether the project is better off with the article here, but I don't see much here that could be salvaged if all of the promotional material were stricken, so I would advocate deletion without prejudice for recreation by a non-COI editor. Deadbeef 21:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You think this is Unambiguous advertising or promotion? I'm not going to dispute there's some promotional tone but it is not blatantly spam. There have been 60 editors involved in development of this article over three years. With that diversity it doesn't seem likely there could be enough WP:COI to merit WP:TNT. ~KvnG 21:59, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Please. As Xxanthippe said, the article is just an ad. If you refuse to delete it, and if someone commits to fix it, then please incubate here instead. I've read through this entire discussion. I'm still not convinced that MobileIron meets WP:GNG. Plus, the article fails WP:NPOV even though it's already three years old; it doesn't deserve to stay on Wikipedia at all, let alone in mainspace. Dear all: Can anyone please point us to two independent non-churnalistic reliably-sourced articles about MobileIron, preferably balanced articles which discuss the relative merits of both MobileIron and its competitors? Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 23:09, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 20:03, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Miriam Mehadipur[edit]

Miriam Mehadipur (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, non notable person. Dusti*Let's talk!* 05:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Worth noting that Saatchi Online is an open-access website; not really the same as saying one's art is in the Saatchi Gallery (though I have encountered various people who say just that). AllyD (talk) 21:02, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 19:25, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge and redirect. Actually, Heli Attack at the time of closing is a redirect with (almost) zero history, so I will first move the page there, and then merge and redirect. This solution removes the objections about the name of the redirect and at the same time preserves the edit history.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:50, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heli Attack (series)[edit]

Heli Attack (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)

Not notable as a series - only the third one has coverage. See WP:NOTINHERITED. Note also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heli Attack 2. Ansh666 20:55, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 23:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Three flash games where only one is notable. The other games should redirect to Heli Attack 3 where the series can be briefly explained. Beerest355 Talk 14:09, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Heli Attack 3, the only one of the three articles meeting the recommendations of the notability essay concerning video games. Miniapolis 01:30, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I oppose a redirect as the title is unlikely. Rather, Heli Attack should just be retargeted to the third installment. Beerest355 Talk 01:57, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, that's why I nominated for deletion - redirect is useless with the disambig in the title. I'd like a merge to Heli Attack 3, but think this page should still be deleted. Ansh666 04:55, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Except that would make the merged content WP:COPYVIO. No matter how unlikely the redirect, if content from a page is merged the original page, as a redirect, must be retained per Wikipedia's attribution requirements. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:04, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually not so. It is obviously correct that we need to retain an audit trail for attribution purposes. However, this does not necessarily man that there needs to be a redirect. Moving the article to a sub-page of Talk:Heli Attack 3, and linking from that talk page, would also work just as well. I acknowledge, though, that creating a redirect is a simpler procedure! The Whispering Wind (talk) 22:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AutomaticStrikeout  ?  18:09, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. No one advocates deletion after a week of discussion. --BDD (talk) 18:08, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mathieu Chantelois[edit]

Mathieu Chantelois (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; the situation is that somebody using the name User:Mathieu Chantelois recently blanked everything in this article with the exception of the very first sentence. I'm not sure what the reasoning is — it could be personal privacy concerns, it could be an accuracy dispute (although the content is properly sourced), it could be somebody else impersonating him to cause problems, or it could be somebody else of the same name who dislikes the association. But as a good faith gesture, I'm putting this up for discussion nonetheless — particularly because if there is any valid reason to strip the article down to its first sentence alone, then it wouldn't even be making a valid or sourced notability claim anymore, and the article thus would have to get deleted anyway. No opinion. Bearcat (talk) 17:40, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:51, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is no basis for the "procedural nomination," since the user who adopted the username same as the subject and who blanked the article, did not start the article. It was started in 2006 by Bearcat, who has nominated it for deletion. Many other editors have contributed to it over many years of its being in the encyclopedia, so blanking by someone claiming to be the subject is not a compelling basis for deletion, any more than is a deletion request from the article creator. The subject was featured in one reality show, then had his own TV show, and has done several other activities which have gotten him mention or substantial coverage in books and other sources, such as "The queer encyclopedia of film & television. Since the deletion nomination did not present a valid basis for deletion, and there is no basis for speedy deletion, it appears that the AFD could be procedurally closed. If the AFD runs the normal period, then the article should be kept as the subject appears to satisfy WP:BLP. Certainly and poorly sourced or unsourced statements should be removed per WP:BLP. A subject of an article might do better with an OTRS request than by blanking an article if some of the info is incorrect. If the article is unbalanced or does not have a neutral point of view, there is the article talk page or the BLP noticeboard. We have no real way of verifying that it was the subject who blanked the article. Edison (talk) 18:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, just for the record, the other reason why I opted to go this route is that while he does have enough sourceable notability to qualify as an article topic, he also isn't really so famous that we necessarily need to maintain an independent article about him. Even most of his other castmates on The Lofters don't actually have their own separate articles, but rather simply have their names mentioned in the main article on the show itself — the only other Lofters who actually have their own separate articles are the ones who, for one reason or another, stayed in the public eye after the show ended. Everybody else besides Mathieu for whom The Lofters itself is the only substantial notability claim is considered a WP:BLP1E, and just gets mentioned in the show's article without being given their own separate bio — and thus it's certainly worth considering that maybe we don't actually need anything more than that about Mathieu either. Our content rules were still being made up as we went along when I first created this, and BLP policy in particular has tightened up a lot since then — so I believe that there may be a valid case to be made that he now falls into that class of people who don't really need to have their own standalone bios anymore.
And for the record, the blanking took place a full week ago and wasn't caught by anybody until I noticed today that the number of articles in Category:LGBT people from Canada had gone down — meaning that somewhere between "not enough people" and "nobody whatsoever" had it watchlisted at all; even I didn't until after I reverted the blanking. So even if the consensus does end up being to keep the article, it needs more eyes on it than it has right now. Bearcat (talk) 20:59, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:59, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 20:03, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ulrich Kortz[edit]

Ulrich Kortz (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 subject of this BLP wants it deleted. An IP editor tried and failed to have it deleted through PROD and CSD before attempting too send it to AFD. I am fixing the AFD nomination because I do not want to remove an AFD template without giving the community a chance to speak. Andrew327 17:36, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. To be clear, I believe this article should be kept, even though I am listed as having nominated it. Andrew327 17:37, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is there any shred of credible evidence to suggest the IP is actually this person? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:42, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did not mean to say that the IP necessarily is the subject, but this PROD clearly shows that he is behind the effort to have it deleted: dif. Andrew327 17:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:03, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:03, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The Bushranger One ping only 22:02, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Detroit Public Safety Headquarters[edit]

Detroit Public Safety Headquarters (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 building Spankyouverymuchhelpymchelper (talk) 17:12, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question to nominator - As this well executed AfD was your very first edit, care to tell us who this account (as well as the anon referenced below) is a sock of? --Oakshade (talk) 04:08, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Building is notable as it was previously the regional headquarters for the Internal Revenue Service and then the temporary casino for the MGM Grand Detroit and now houses the police and fire headquarters for the City of Detroit as well as a major forensics laboratory for the Michigan State Police. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 17:53, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Also, nominator who put the tag on the article's page was an IP address User:67.218.41.166 who has been reprimanded and had their account suspended in July and August 2012 for abusive and disruptive edits then suddenly a few minutes later the nomination was created and added onto the AfD page by User:Spankyouverymuchhelpymchelper whose account was created 13:10, 8 August 2013 and with no other edits or history on English Wikipedia which IMHO is very suspicious which leads me to question the legitimacy of this AfD request and that this is possible a case of Sockpuppetry, In which case I suggest that this nomination be either placed on hold or cancelled all together. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 23:34, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
IP addresses are techincally unable to create pages; therefore, they cannot complete AfD nominations. What probably happened was that someone using the IP wanted to nominate this page for deletion, and got technically prevented from doing so, so they created an account to finish the process. Sockpuppetry is a deliberate use of multiple accounts for illegitamate purposes. Creating an account to complete a good-faith deletion nomination wouldn't necessarily be classified as sock puppetry. I think we should let this nomination through without accusing anyone right now. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 16:15, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:01, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Police HQs in major cities are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:49, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 18:00, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of trademarks using french nouns[edit]

List of trademarks using french nouns (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)

Emotionally I like the idea, because it is fun. Intellectually this is not a topic for an encyclopaedia because it lacks notability. Fiddle Faddle 16:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hello this page has just been created, and already proposed for deletion ... I don't think it's fun (at least not only). Actually there are equivalent pages for the inverse situation List of generic and genericized trademarks, but I have been looking for such lists everywhere for an article I'm currently writing on the hijacking of names, and could not find any. So please could you behold until you see how it flies, let me time to add content? Thanks --universimmedia (talk) 16:31, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment having further time elapse does not make ot notable, it simply makes it a non notable article where further time has elapsed. Wikipedia is not a miscellany. Fiddle Faddle 16:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this very constructive comment! --universimmedia (talk) 18:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:22, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:22, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:22, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Fiddle Faddle. Not notable - WP:OR required to create the list. Ansh666 17:10, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:OR. The intersection of two unrelated things "trademark" and "French noun" does not create a notable list. You could just as well have "corporate logos whose main color is blue" or any number of other combinations. Kitfoxxe (talk) 19:21, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The appropriation of proper nouns as trademarks is a notable topic, and there might be sources that would enable an encyclopaedic article to be created. But I cannot see where this particular article is going, and like others I cannot see it succeeding. Trademarks in every country? At present it consists of two trademarks which are the property of French companies which are also nouns in French. But one was originally British, is also a noun in English, and brings us into the area of EU trademark recognition. Why France and the French language, and what is notable about the choice? If the topic is notable because there were for example court cases where domestic and international law had come into conflict, the list consisted of notable exceptions to a general rule, etc, then we could be getting somewhere, but the scope of the article would need to be narrowed and made explicit in the title. Otherwise is is just an indiscriminate list. At the moment, I cannot see it even being interesting unless further commentary is planned and then it would still not constitute a Wikipedia article. --AJHingston (talk) 21:15, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Andrew for bringing constructive arguments to this discussion. Note that the article was created today at 16:11, and proposed for deletion at 16:16, 5 minutes later! This explains why the content is so poor, it was just starting!! Since, instead of gathering the said content, I'm answering this discussion ... I won't repeat here the answer to Fiddle Faddle you can read on my user page. I acknowledge the page discussed here is too specific, as well as the similar one I started for english nouns List of trademarks using english nouns, which should be deleted as well following the same logic, and hence the Category:List of trademarks using common nouns created for those lists (and others I was intending to add, but I understand I'd better stop) is to delete as well. But I won't surrender on the point that the topic itself, let's call it for now Use of common nouns as trademarks is notable and raises technical issues in information systems (as said in answer to Fiddle Faddle), legal issues and cultural/social issues (enclosures in the knowledge commons). The lists I started as separate articles could be included in such an article. How does that sound?--universimmedia (talk) 21:56, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How about, instead of first making these lists that seem nonsensical to anyone who doesn't know what you're thinking (which is everyone but you, by the way), you start with a page on the topic? Then, we can see the sense behind what you're doing, and you won't have to waste your time (and others', which is a plus too!) with these discussions. Just a friendly suggestion. Ansh666 22:04, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Comment There is nothing to assert nor to cite the notability of this topic. Nor can there be for your putative topic. One may as well create List of nouns used in the naming of hamsters. This is a topic for a miscellany, perhaps. For this encyclopaedia, not at all. Fiddle Faddle 22:06, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as OR, non-notable topic. I'll second Ansh666's point: if there've been controversies, e.g. legal issues, concerning the use of common words in trademarks, then presumably there's been media coverage of them, giving them notability and making them appropriate subjects for a well-sourced WP article or articles. Compiling an OR-based list of common words that may or may not have been involved in such controversies, in the hope that it can one day be incorporated into a real article, is a bass-ackward approach. (Comment dit-on "bass-ackward" en français?) Ammodramus (talk) 22:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK folks, j'ai mis la charrue avant les bœufs. For examples of sources for legal issues what about http://www.finnegan.com/CelloHoldingsvLawrence-DahlCos-StoreyvCelloHoldings/ or http://secureyourtrademark.com/can-you-trademark/common-words-phrases/, or http://hotword.dictionary.com/facebooktrademark/ --universimmedia (talk) 23:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that you undertook this in good faith, and as I said before the topic behind this is a notable one. But intellectual property law is an enormously complex area, and to embark upon it for a Wikipedia article would require good reliable sources, which these are not. Reported cases are useful as illustrations, but they should either be cases which are themselves notable because of the political or public debate that they generated, or be notable in a legal sense in which case there should be cited authorities for that. Wikipedia is not the place for an essay or the products of your own original research. Remember this is an international encyclopaedia. And you could not start from the present list. --AJHingston (talk) 23:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll bind by the Great Wikipedia Rules. I'll do my homework, find good reliable sources (whenever I understand what that means) and be back, maybe ten years from now. Go ahead and DELETE. This conversation was very instructive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Universimmedia (talk • contribs) 08:00, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My biggest problem is how do we decide orange is a French word for this list purpose, and not an English one. This is a non-notable list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:01, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:59, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 18:16, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blessthefall EP[edit]

Blessthefall EP (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 EP from a notable band. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A not notable EP from early on in a notable bands career. As the article says "only 100 copies were made" and it does not have significant coverage in reliable sources. STATic message me! 10:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:45, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 18:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Black Rose Dying[edit]

Black Rose Dying (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 EP from a notable band. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:NALBUMS due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. I do not think three song EPs should ever have articles except in very rare exceptions. STATic message me! 11:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:44, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 19:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Net Locality[edit]

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

This article does not meet notability criteria for books (WP:Notability (books)). There are only two references. One just mentions the book, without the review, the other one doesn't even mention the book at all. Most of the article is just book content. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:38, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:51, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per [17], [18], [19], and [20]. SL93 (talk) 03:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete it's notable, but that's not the only criterion for keeping an article. The content is inappropriate, from the first sentence (it is not a textbook in the sense of a book intended for teaching opurposes to accompany a course) through all the overdetailed content, all the way to the last, which summarizes worthless reviews on goodreads and blurbs. I urge SL93 to write a proper article, referring to the actual published reviews, DGG ( talk ) 04:14, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • None of those things should cause an article to be deleted. You want it deleted because it needs to be cleaned up, which is not within policy. As someone who has been editing on Wikipedia since 2006, you should know this. SL93 (talk) 15:57, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:42, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (but COI) - Notable plus existing [somewhat usable] substance plus potential for improvement is a combination that seems to usually point to keep, but I should disclose that I do know the book's authors (which presents a COI but also means I've been exposed to sufficient reviews, talks, references, etc. of/about this book to convince me of its legitimate notability). --Rhododendrites (talk) 20:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Articles on notable subjects with some reusable content are kept, irrespective of the amount of cleanup which they require. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:42, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 18:18, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Institution of Analysts and Programmers[edit]

Institution of Analysts and Programmers (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 is referenced, but all from the official website of the institution. For secondary coverage apart from routine linkedin the only mention of this organisation I can find is on the sponsor list of University of Sunderland here and a book by Barbee Davis on GB titled 97 Things Every Project Manager Should Know (of dubious notability). The article fails WP:GNG. The Legend of Zorro 15:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. The Legend of Zorro 15:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. The Legend of Zorro 15:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:19, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:41, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 19:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wang Xiwen[edit]

Wang Xiwen (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)

Classical WP:ONEVENT. No lasting notability. All necessary details can and are included in List of rampage killers: Asia. Rampage killers are, unfortunately, not very rare and therefore being one does not necessarily make a person notable. Randykitty (talk) 15:59, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:PERP. Wang Xiwen was a follower of the Gang of Four and carried out the attack as retaliation for the upcoming trial of its members. He was publicly tried as a counter-revolutionary in front of an audience of 50,000 people, so I suppose his crime and his trial can be considered at least somehwat unusual. To claim "no lasting notability" can at best be a guess on your part based on an absence of English language sources, but since western media had and still has almost no interest in major criminal cases in China this can hardly be considered evidence of lacking notability. On the contrary, the fact that the New York Times bothered enough to publish an article about him tells me that it must've been quite a sensation in China. And just because the article is a stub does not mean that all necessary information can be included in the List of rampage killers. There is more information available and it may be expanded over time, but you have to start somehow. (Lord Gøn (talk) 17:50, 24 July 2013 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment As far as I see, I could have said in the nom: "delete per WP:PERP". Xiwen obviously does not fall into any of the exceptions mentioned in that guideline. Indeed, absence of evidence of notability does not mean proof that there isn't any. However, it even less means that "something must be out there". The onus here is to show notability. Proving absence of something is almost impossible. In any case, nothing suggests any lasting notability: all sources are from around the time of the event, nothing suggests that this case still garners interest, in western media or in China. --Randykitty (talk) 20:25, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, neither 1985, nor 1986 is "around the time of the event", it's years later, and if you think that you could as well have based your nomination on WP:Perp, then your interpretation of the guideline is definitely different than mine. I suppose you have not checked any of the more detailed sources, because if you would've, you probably would not exclaim with such certainty that it "obviously does not fall into any of the exceptions". Also you said "No lasting notability", not "the given sources are not sufficient to establish notability". It is true that notability has to be proven, but it is also true that your absolutist statement is completely unfounded and based on mere speculation. The subject may very well be notable, even if you don't accept the given sources as proof of notability. That said I have given various secondary sources that report about the case, some of them fairly detailed, and as I said, even today it would be highly unusual for a western newspaper to report about such a crime being committed in China, it is certainly more unusual for the year 1981, and the few exceptions are generally high profile cases. I don't know, maybe it was common in China at that time that trials filled entire stadiums, but if not, I would say that it is more than just a baseless assumption that this was a sensationalist case that was allowed to get significant publicity in order to make an example. (Lord Gøn (talk) 22:09, 24 July 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:41, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:39, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus to keep following relisting. The Bushranger One ping only 04:30, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gliese 661[edit]

Gliese 661 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO. StringTheory11 (t • c) 19:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative Keep: It has been the subject of a couple of multiple journal articles,[21][22][23] albeit fairly old ones, and is discussed in several others. Several refer to it as Furuhjelm 46, although that doesn't fit the naming conventions per WP:STARNAMES. Praemonitus (talk) 01:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • True; WP:NCASTRO needs some major overhauls though; for example, Gliese designations are not often used in astronomy and IMO should be removed from that clause. There's also some other problems with it, so I think moving this to that name you mentioned after closure of this if it's kept would be a good idea. StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:41, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the multiple independent articles directly about the subject found by Praemonitus. I don't think it matters that the sources are old; notability is not temporary. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:35, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Notability has now been shown. SL93 (talk) 22:54, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus to keep following relisting. The Bushranger One ping only 04:31, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Analı kızlı soup[edit]

Analı kızlı soup (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:NOTHOW. Simple as that. "Instruction manuals. While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places and things, an article should not read like a "how-to" style owner's manual, advice column (legal, medical or otherwise) or suggestion box. This includes tutorials, instruction manuals, game guides, and recipes. " (emphasis added) Gtwfan52 (talk) 21:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Having what a dish is made of is not a recipe - that would be something like "add x amount of y", "cook for z minutes", etc. While WP:N may not be satisfied here (trying to find a specific guideline/essay for food and drink right now...), your nomination rationale is completely incorrect. Ansh666 22:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll say weak keep - Google can find stuff (to prove it exists), and a quick perusal of related pages says that besides the grammar it's at a food stub level. Ansh666 22:34, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The nomination is for deletion based on the article being a recipe. It is absolutely not a recipe. One cannot reasonable expect an article about a prepared food item to not mention the main ingredients that constitute the dish. There are no instructions in the article indicating proportions of ingredients, preparations steps, etc. that would represent an actual recipe. Could one write a reasonable article on apple pie without mentioning apples? -- Whpq (talk) 15:43, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:32, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Reasonable claim to notability. It would be better to have more than one source. Kitfoxxe (talk) 19:25, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - because it isn't a recipe Fbryce (talk) 20:53, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar · · 07:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Love: Destiny[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Love: Destiny (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 - no significant coverage by any major media, as far as I can find Adabow (talk) 07:00, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. 07:02, 22 July 2013 (UTC) Adabow (talk) 07:02, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am disputing neither the notability of Destiny's Child nor the existence of the EP, but the only things written about the EP are merely that it exists—no reviews, no background, et cetera. Destiny's Child discography already summarises this article. Adabow (talk) 11:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but potential redirect pointing to the summary may serve better than red link, don't you think? --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 11:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there would be any cases where the article would be redlinked, as it is only linked from the navbox and the discography page. Love: Destiny should instead redirect to Love (Destiny). Adabow (talk) 22:43, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 05:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - User:Vejvančický notability is not inherited or inherent, I don't know how I'd would conform notability with this EP, it indeed lacks reviews, coverage, since it was a limited issue and edition. The only mention I found was in this site [25], which stated some reasons and background info behind this release. Maybe a further research may provide more details. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 18:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:09, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:34, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 22:00, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Flavian[edit]

Robert Flavian (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 sourcing here is abysmal, and certainly doesn't validate an article:

"Multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject"? Not really. - Biruitorul Talk 14:57, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:25, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:25, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless Wikipedia articles or talk (!) pages count as reliable sources. They don't.- Andrei (talk) 09:31, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 19:00, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

V-Nasty[edit]

AfDs for this article:
V-Nasty (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 is not at all notable, and fails WP:MUSICBIO, this page was deleted before, all the sources don't seem to be reliable, except maybe the Boston Globe and the article wasn't even really about the person in question. LiberatorLX (talk) 14:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The fact that the article is a stub, does not mean it is not notable. The artist has been a subject of many publication (even a simple Google search brings many results), they just haven't been included. Also she is signed to a major label and has a major label album released, which was also subject to comments from the media. 2Flows (talk) 14:36, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just check the comments from the previous discussion, where lots of notable sources have been presented and resulted in a keep... 2Flows (talk) 14:41, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How many have been sold? Anyone can release an album, it doesn't make them notable or famous, I don't really believe this person in question meets the criteria for a Musician, let alone is notable enough for an article on wikipedia. This person in question seems to be a glorified groupie, but not a musician. What parts of WP:MUSICBIO does she pass? 5. says: Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are notable). One is not good enough. LiberatorLX (talk) 14:53, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If deletion is not an option, maybe a redirect to Kreayshawn would be a good idea, but the article itself doesn't appear to be inherently notable for an individual article. LiberatorLX (talk) 14:59, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
She passes musicbio 1, easily. Your personal feelings about the subject are not relevant, and insulting language about the subject of a BLP is never acceptable. 78.19.52.125 (talk) 15:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to insult, I'm just saying she seems to be more groupie than an actual musician, and doesn't seem to pass WP:MUSICBIO, could you explain how she passes 1.? LiberatorLX (talk) 15:53, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article clearly passes point 1, as it has received wide media coverage. If you had read the discussion for the previous nomination, you would see plenty of links to notable sources who have articles about her, since then even more have come up and a simple Google search can confirm that, as I mentioned above. 2Flows (talk) 16:41, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well before nominating this article, I actually did check for that, alot of the sources were from blog posts, and Wikipedia states that if they are a journalist then yes it could be reliable, however blog posts can be written by basically anyone, and there is no indication that those who wrote the blog posts were in fact journalists, this does make it very complex, but if you feel deletion isn't a bad idea, perhaps Userfying or Redirection to a notable page is a good option. I'm not saying the person in question could be notable one day, and I have nothing against the person in question, I am unbiased, I nominated this article in good faith because as it stands right now, her notability is questionable. So it's not really clear if it passes 1. or not. LiberatorLX (talk) 17:33, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blogs_as_sources

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#Are_web_forums_and_blog_talkbacks_reliable_sources.3F LiberatorLX (talk) 17:27, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not mean blogs, but notable publications as I said. I compiled a list of some for you:
and also reviews for her album include:
2Flows (talk) 20:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, per the above list, changing my vote to Speedy Keep, notability is obvious... 2Flows (talk) 20:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some of those might be reliable sources, others are not, can you add some of them to the article in question? I'd do it but I'm not the expert in this subject, so I don't know where to put it. I just didn't find it to pass WP:MUSICBIO when I looked at the article initially. If some reliable sources can be added to the article then there won't be any questions. Just from reading a few they seem to be blog posts once again, and for that to meet the requirements to be a reliable source it has to meet strict criteria, rarely can it be used as a source. LiberatorLX (talk) 14:17, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She's clearly got enough media coverage to be notable. Second AfD had loads of sources cited, so I don't see why this was nominated again: it does look like a case of Did Not Do The Homework. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:39, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well with all due respect, I did do the homework, I looked at the article, and did not find but one source that may have been reliable, a lot of the sources in the 2nd AfD didn't seem to be reliable, they were blog posts which need to meet strict criteria to be reliable. The sources should be in the article itself, not the 2nd AfD, or this one, and they must be reliable, which is still in question. If you want to help add some of the sources you believe are reliable be my guest, like I said before, I would try to do it myself but I figure you may know more about the subject in question. I'm looking at this from a neutral POV. LiberatorLX (talk) 14:17, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my rationale in the previous AfD: sufficient coverage exists in multiple reliable sources. Subject meets WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO.  Gong show 05:51, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes this article had been improved drastically, and I'm thinking of withdrawing the AfD. LiberatorLX (talk) 18:06, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. No prejudice against recreation when he reaches the majors. The Bushranger One ping only 21:59, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Mayora[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Daniel Mayora (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)

Mayora never made the major leagues and is now playing in Independent ball. Based on my search, I do not believe I found enough to establish his notability. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  14:18, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing to show this player meets the notability criteria for baseball players or has the coverage necessary to meet GNG. Jakejr (talk) 01:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of basketball leagues. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 18:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Professional basketball[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Professional basketball (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)

Unsourced article. Duplicate of List of basketball leagues. My redirect was reverted. NickSt (talk) 10:31, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:42, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:43, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore redirect per nom and above. Unnecessary duplicate article. Ansh666 17:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Guy Code#Specials. postdlf (talk) 20:05, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Code Honors[edit]

Guy Code Honors (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)

Absolutely no evidence of notability. Sourced only to a blog and a press release. (PROD was removed by the creator of the article.) JamesBWatson (talk) 08:51, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:03, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:04, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Offhand I'm leaning towards redirecting it to MTV2's_Guy_Code#Specials, which I just created. This doesn't offhand look to be that notable outside of the main show itself. I'll see if I can find anything other than primary sources, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to MTV2's_Guy_Code#Specials. Offhand this doesn't seem to have gained any true coverage in reliable sources. I see where some PR was sent out, but overall this particular episode doesn't seem to have gained anything to show that it's notable outside of the main Guy Code show. If this is held again next year and gains coverage in the future we can always re-create this, but offhand I think that this is just simply WP:TOOSOON for its own article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:23, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect Only reliable sources are primary. Nwlaw63 (talk) 12:54, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to MTV2's_Guy_Code#Specials per Tokyogirl79. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:25, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect per above. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 07:42, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above. Fbryce (talk) 20:50, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per TG79; cheesy awards show of no interest to anyone except fans of the show. Nate • (chatter) 22:01, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Prevlaka. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Konfin[edit]

Konfin (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 evidence of notability of this border crossing (no building, only 2 containers). Eleassar my talk 07:41, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is that 42°25′17″N 18°31′19″E / 42.421391°N 18.521975°E / 42.421391; 18.521975 or 42°25′38″N 18°31′22″E / 42.427199°N 18.52264°E / 42.427199; 18.52264? Either way, it doesn't look impressive, but local news sources do occasionally mention it as the southernmost land crossing between Croatia and Montenegro. It's not apparently a very old toponym, the older name for the placecorr: larger nearby cape is Kobila (cf. cape at File:Vicinity-of-Prevlaka-in-Croatia-and-Montenegro.PNG), but either way it could stay more as a gazetteer matter (WP:5). --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:44, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the main concern is that most of the coverage of Konfin is either about its opening in 2002, which might be WP:ONEEVENT, or run-off-the-mill coverage like the police busting some random smuggler. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:18, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The first set of coordinates points to the Croatian border post (Konfin) and the second one to the Montenegrin post (Kobila). There are few sources mentioning Konfin (forex: [55], [56], [57]), the first one of those might yield material for an article - on Konfin as the border crossing established after a settlement re Prevlaka. Oddly enough, neither Konfin nor any other border crossing is mentioned in Prevlaka article (despite considerable article size).--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:22, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I went to look and found that the first book source in the Prevlaka article shows a map that clarifies the two capes. I think the basic gazetteer standard is met, so keep (but see below). --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:31, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Prevlaka seems reasonable.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:31, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Border crossings are not inherently notable, i.e. they would still need to meet WP:GNG, and the coverage of Konfin appears to be strictly episodic. As a toponym, it does not appear in the (fairly detailed, at 10,000+ entries) Gazetteer of the Republic of Croatia. GregorB (talk) 17:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Err, the same search engine doesn't find cape Oštro, either. The only Prevlaka it finds is a settlement near Rugvica. It also doesn't list Vitaljina's hamlets. I guess that's an acceptable level of detail generally, but when it comes to contentious border regions, I'd rather we include more than less. (Merging and redirecting is fine, too.) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:08, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note also the lackluster coverage of the Extreme points of Croatia in that Gazetteer. And Also there is intention to import all names of: islands, rivers, lakes, mountains, peaks and other dominant geographical objects according to the scale. Continuously works on development and updating Gazetteer are in progress.. They know it's incomplete. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:39, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While Extreme points of Croatia are sourced as such elsewhere, the gazetteer is incomplete, there is no doubt about that. Is there room then for, say, 15 or 20 thousand Croatian toponyms in Wikipedia? My point is that it makes no sense to go beyond highly detailed (if still incomplete) gazetteers if this is not in some way justified by the sources. I don't think such entries enhance Wikipedia. GregorB (talk) 11:19, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
These two capes are part of the Prevlaka story, and the borderline on and around them is discussed in detail in those sources. Do you see any reason not to merge it in there? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:42, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No reason at all, actually. E.g. Oštro is itself, despite at least some claim of notability, not discussed in a separate article. It makes sense because there is actually nothing much to say about it, same as Konfin. GregorB (talk) 18:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done, basically. Do we have a consensus for redirecting there? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 20:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vglog[edit]

Vglog (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 still surprised that we don't have a CSD criterion for "neologism". If someone thinks they can find one that fits (A7 web content, perhaps?) go for it. Ignatzmice•talk 03:51, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:30, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:30, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:NEO. Wouldn't be adverse to A7, but not sure if it fits exactly. Ansh666 06:43, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NEO / WP:MADEUP. Unverifiable, non-encyclopedic content, bordering on original research. I agree with the above comments about A7. — sparklism hey! 07:03, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per, I don't know, WP:GNG or something. I've always felt as though we would do well with three or four more CSD criteria. In my little nirvana, this would fall under one of them. Deadbeef 08:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looks like it's unverifiable and made up to me.--MONGO 15:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) czar · · 06:43, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lithuanian Snowboarding Championships[edit]

This is very minor and annonymous tournament. It is minor national championship only, so it's not notable. The amount of information is too poor, too many red links. Its quality is very low. Banhtrung1 (talk) 02:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lithuanian Snowboarding Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A national championship of an olympioc sport.User:Lucifero4
  • Keep - If we're going by low quality, then you can delete over half the encyclopedia. Anyway, by the looks of it, this championship is notable. The article is well-sourced and it seems to be the national championship for this sport. I am a bit concerned that there is no precedent for seemingly anything regarding snowboarding. When I was looking through the sports notability guideline for something to go off of, I saw nothing regarding the sport. TCN7JM 17:53, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A national championship should be considered notable, regardless of sport. Mentoz86 (talk) 15:26, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2013_August_8&oldid=1142222965"