Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 April 12

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. J04n(talk page) 00:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmic Toast Studios (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)

Couldn't find any sources that claimed notability. Fails WP:NCORP MaskedHero (talk) 23:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The current version of the article is substantially a word-for-word copy from the studio's About Us page. There is a clean version to revert to, so G12 is not applicable. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment just had to blank that section, as we cant have any substantial copyvios standing, and i dont want to try to edit this down if its under AFD. i did edit the lede enough to probably not be a copyvio.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:45, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:09, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:CORP. The studio produces Slangman's World, which gets some secondary source coverge, but I can't find non-trivial RS coverage for Cosmic Toast Studios itself. Most of the RS mentions come from personnel moves of ex-Cosmic Toast people. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 15 April 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. This is purely housekeeping, as the page was speedily deleted as a negative, unsourced BLP. TheBlueCanoe 03:31, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Manolo Latorre Castillo (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)

Severely negative, poorly-written BLP accusing its subject of multiple criminal offenses without anything close to enough reliable sourcing. There may very well be a GNG-passing article under this, but in its current state and in light of the potentially defamatory allegations it contains, I propose that we WP:NUKEANDPAVE this one; any salvageable content can be merged into Grup d'Acció Valencianista. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 23:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Besides the fact that this is an open goal asking for WP:BLP violations, the subject of the article is not notable. GAV is much too small these days for their leaders to attract the type of coverage necessary to meet either WP:GNG or WP:BLP and I don't see any content that could be usefully combined into the GAV article. Valenciano (talk) 18:56, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no way to verify by reliable English sources. Also, potentially defamation until he's at least arrested for some crime. Bearian (talk) 17:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about reliable English sources. The sources don't have to be in English. Spanish and Valencian/Catalan would be fine. However I've already looked there and there are only occasional mentions in passingsuch as this one. Valenciano (talk) 20:16, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as a blatant attack page. I've tagged it as such. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:54, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• This has been speedily deleted, so could someone who knows how please close this discussion accordingly? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:17, 17 April 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. J04n(talk page) 00:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Penelope Trunk (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 person is not notable, per WP:BIO Jirt (talk) 23:31, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. Given the number of prior unsuccessful deletion attempts, more is needed than a mere assertion that is put forth by the editor proposing this AfD (for some reason only one prior AfD is linked on the talk page). The nominator has not provided any new reasons for deleting the article. In the meantime, the article has had additional sources added. While a number of the references might be the subject herself, there are still several independent reliable sources cited. In fact, since this was re-nominated, another editor found numerous additional sources. All applicable notability guidelines have had the necessary thresholds met. Agent 86 (talk) 09:05, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And just for the record, the same reasons I gave in the second AfD go for this one, too.Agent 86 (talk) 09:08, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, satisfies WP:NOTE, significant discussion among secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 19:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. I think I have sufficiently "rescued" what was a poorly sourced article about a subject who I believe meets the criteria outlined in WP:NOTE. I've added multiple secondary sources from major newspapers. She's authored three books, been a syndicated columnist, and has a career blog that is not infrequently mentioned in reliable sources. The article was not good before, but that doesn't mean she doesn't meet the notability criteria. And I think I've addressed the primary source problem and added sufficient context to make it a decent article. I don't see how this article could warrant deletion at this point when there was no consensus the previous two times. Safehaven86 (talk) 01:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good job on that, by the way. Agent 86 (talk) 08:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks! Safehaven86 (talk) 16:15, 16 April 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. J04n(talk page) 00:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bayesian community (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 secondary sources; not notable; article started by the author of the primary source (COI); the other cited sources do not refer to this topic. Dicklyon (talk) 21:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There are a few different kinds of Bayesian community out there. There is the community of folks practicing Bayesian statistics, served for instance by the International Society for Bayesian Analysis. There is the Bayesian Community Detection problem in network analysis. And then there is the neologism coined by J. Schrager for the kinds of cognitive interactions seen in scientific networks and in particular as a synonym for multistage inference in his CACHE program (see section 6.3 and note 2 in his paper). The article is about the Shrager neologism. As far as I can tell from Google Scholar, there is a primary reference and 2-3 citations of that paper in other publications. There are no secondary or independent sources that I can find. The topic thus falls below threshold for general notability per WP:GNG. Lack of notability suggests that this article be deleted. --Mark viking (talk) 22:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete What Mark said. If anything, my default reaction to the phrase would be the first usage he outlined above, which makes this article confusing, in addition to being about a neologism. Ray^Talk 02:44, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I agree that "Bayesian community" is being used for the article in a novel and non-notable way. As a side remark, "Bayesian community detection" parses as "Bayesian (community detection)", so does not involve a "Bayesian community". Dingo1729 (talk) 04:47, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There are 6 citations in google scholar. However, I didn't find one offering analysis of this work. Merging into analysis of competing hypotheses could be another option. (talk) 05:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this smacks of classic original research. Bearian (talk) 17:27, 16 April 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 Optare#Buses. There is no requirement that sources be online or be included in the article, but they must be presented in the discussion to be considered. If it's an offline source, then present it and give a short exerpt of the section purported to support notability. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Optare ColumboRider (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)

Very unlikely to expand due to lack of sources/references on web. Possibly redirect/merge with Optare StarRider? Tom the Tomato (talk) 08:21, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge losslessly to Optare StarRider: There's a good reliable reference for the ColumboRider already in the article, but it needs one more to be notable. By contrast, there are a few refs available for the StarRider (of varying reliability). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:05, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - non notable, Davey2010 Talk 08:32, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable per above and nom. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 19:14, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As a unique model of production motor vehicle, notability is established per long-standing consensus. The fact there is only one reference currently in the article is irrelevant; the sources need only exist, and need not be online. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:47, 12 April 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) 19:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Agree with thoughts set-forth by The Bushranger. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deedbunk (talk • contribs) 05:32, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - It's not a unique model at all, as it's based on a chassis used by several other buses (as is the way buses are built) - it's just a body. This means that, if it can be reliably sourced, a mention in Mercedes-Benz T2#Second generation (1986–1996) may be appropriate, but a standalone article is not, unless it passes GNG. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Optare#Buses, we don't need a separate page for every model particularly if sources can't be located. J04n(talk page) 00:35, 19 April 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. While there were policy-based arguments on both sides that dealt with whether the subject of all her goals is notable enough for a stand-alone list, much of this discussion has devolved into whether WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a valid comparison or not, which is only tangentially relevant to the discussion. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:51, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of international goals scored by Abby Wambach (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)

If they want to look at the list of int. goals scored, they can look under this article. Plus this page violates WP:NOTSTATS. – Michael (talk) 19:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I am also nominating the following article for the same reason. – Michael (talk) 19:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of international goals scored by Christine Sinclair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 19:45, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete but only because this article violates so many guidelines. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Such as? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:24, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article is part of a collection of articles about Abby Wambach. See WP:DISCRIMINATE to further clarify WP:NOTSTATS per previous comments here. Hmlarson (talk) 20:20, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - WP:LISTN, WP:NOTSTATS would both seem to apply. NickCT (talk) 20:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wrong on both counts. The list is notable, it doesn't fail any kind of notability check, and NOSTATS doesn't work here either I'm afraid, see below. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:25, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a fansite for every famous sports personality. Both footballers are prolific goalscorers, but I highly doubt that each individual goal is as notable. Funny ^Pika! 21:13, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While this may be true for you, to a journalist, historian, or someone else interested in women athletes, the Olympics, and the history of football, the article is not WP:CRUFT. See Wikipedia:Fancruft#Articles_about_fictional_works, specifically: "The term "fancruft" is most commonly applied to fictional subjects." Hmlarson (talk) 17:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're entitled to your opinion, but please read the first sentence of that essay before quoting an irrelevant part of it. Funny ^Pika! 23:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, it's an essay. It's fascinating, but it has no bearing on anything here. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:14, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (but a little torn on this). Many prominent male international footballers have a list of their international goals within their article e.g. Lionel Messi, David Beckham, Pelé etc, so clearly the community believe that listing international goals is noteworthy. It so happens that Wambach has so many goals that she should be afforded the right to a standalone list of her goals (since adding the list to her main article would violate WP:SIZE). Seems reasonable. Although some of the info in the list seems a little too statty. Having said that, there should be no reason why the list of goals shouldn't be allowed to exist. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When did I say anything about not having a list of goals within an article? Messi, Beckham and Pele have nothing to do with this discussion. – Michael (talk) 23:27, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One of the flaws of pointing to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is that it isn't always valid. For starters, those three highlighted articles are 2-3 times larger than the suggested article size given in WP:SIZE. If I were to try to condense it, I'd start by pruning bloated statistics like individual goals scored. Secondly, correct me if I'm wrong but I don't believe anyone on this list has their own international goals scored page - so by that same logic clearly the community believe that listing international goals on a separate page is not that noteworthy. Just because it exists in an article doesn't necessarily mean it's notable enough to be on a stand alone page, as per WP:AVOIDSPLIT. Lastly, the omission of detailed statistics such as goals scored doesn't detract from the summaries already provided on their respective main articles (Abby Wambach#International goals and Christine Sinclair#International). Milestone goals are mentioned and those scored during major tournaments are also included below that. Funny ^Pika! 00:38, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's more a case that the community have clearly agreed that international goals are notable enough for inclusion in articles. Once the list of goals becomes too big, it should become a standalone list. That's what's happened here. "Milestone" goals are purely subjective and have no place in Wikipedia. We also should note that we avoid having lists on articles which are, by default, collapsed. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:09, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While I'd acknowledge that many football players have international goals listed in their articles via WP:EDITCONCENSUS, none have yet to have their own standalone list - even if they are far over the suggested 50kb for article size (like the previous examples). As per WP:SUMMARY: "Editors are cautioned not to immediately split articles if the new article would meet neither the general notability criterion nor the specific notability criteria for their topic." Milestone goals are simply notable ones - those that meet the notablity criteria and gain significant coverage. Funny ^Pika! 13:11, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How do you define what a milestone goal is? Your opinion what a milestone goal may be different from mine. There's no doubt that international goals from the third-highest scorer in female football history is notable. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:42, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to think that the phrase "meet the notablity criteria and gain significant coverage" would be synonymous with this by now, but I'll restate it for the purpose of this discussion. I respectfully disagree with your assertion that all "international goals from the third-highest scorer in female football history" are notable. Some of them are noteworthy in their own right and are mentioned in her article, but merely listing all her individual international caps and goals on a separate page is indiscriminate because goals which would have been notable are relegated to some minor tabulated detail without any critical commentary. Funny ^Pika! 20:53, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well we're both churning out the same old dross, just from different directions. I want the encyclopedia to be inclusive, not a paper one, you want it to avoid "statistics". Let's agree to disagree. Looks like you'll get your way in any case, and we should therefore remove all mention of anything other than these so called "noteworthy" goals (how did you define those, once again, because I bet I could source an article describing each and every Wambach international goal if that's what you really want...)? What are your criteria for "noteworthy goals"? If you want commentary, we could "expand" the list article, that's not too hard either. It's not a do-or-die scenario, you could actually suggest improvements if you really believe in what you're saying! (And note, please read WP:DISCRIMINATE before pointing at the not-relevant WP:INDISCRIMINATE. This list is far from an indiscriminate list of statistics. It is a well-defined set of items, all notable. And the article has over 200 references to prove it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed we are. I'm not quite sure how to define "notable" goals for you without having to explicitly cut and paste the WP:General Notability Criteria, but I suppose an example would be Maradona's Hand of God goal and Goal of the Century during Argentina's 1986 World Cup quarter final match against England. Like I've already mentioned, her goals are already discussed succinctly here: Abby Wambach#International career. If you feel like contributing to that section, feel free. Getting back to the topic at hand, those 204 US Soccer references document her participation in each of the 204 international matches she's played in - which only go to confirm that they exist, not that they are in any way notable. Just because a notable person scores a goal does not mean that goal automatically inherits notability, which is what this list hinges on. Funny ^Pika! 22:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well not really, not at all. This list hinges on the fact that it's too large to exist in the main article. And it's clearly not a failing of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. It's a well defined set of data in an accessible format. Still, as I said, you just want to get rid of things like this, I can't see a problem as this is not a paper encyclopedia. Let's leave it there. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:33, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I'm merely trying to ascertain whether I may have missed something but the same repetitive response over and over again is giving me pause for thought. You clearly think that international goals are not indiscriminate because they appear to be a definable set, whereas I don't believe they are a notable definable set. And so yes, Wikipedia is not meant to be WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING. Funny ^Pika! 17:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologise, your attempts to discuss this are well intentioned, I'm sure. In any case, thanks for your contributions, you seem very well abreast of the various SHORTCUTS having only been here three months, very keen work! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I don't see how this list violates WP:NOTSTATS, which warns only against the inclusion of unwieldy and unnecessary detailed lists of information within articles ("Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles.") - which obviously would be a problem if this monstrous table was included within Abby Wambach. If this list was poorly sourced or otherwise unmaintained then I could agree that it's an unnecessarily detailed set of information - but as it's up-to-date and verifiable to reliable sources, I simply view it as a valid split of bulky information as per WP:SPLIT that provides useful information to readers interested in more depth. ~ mazca ^talk 23:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the title is quite misleading - it should read something along the lines of List of Abby Wambach international statistics. Not only does it include individual international goals scored, but details of every international match played (tabulated in four different formats) and also a list of assists made by each of her teammates. If that doesn't fall under "Excessive listings of statistics" I'm not sure what would. Funny ^Pika! 02:04, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The list itself could use some work, but the principle of the list's existence is really what we're debating. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:12, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Here are examples of lists of goals in other articles: Landon Donovan's, Clint Dempsey's, Brian McBride's, DeMarcus Beasley's, Julie Fleeting's, Alex Morgan's, Sydney Leroux's, Homare Sawa's. Abby Wambach's and Christine Sinclair's lists are only much longer; too long to be sections in the main articles (wiki timeout on save). The lists are enumeration of their accomplishments; deleting these lists would reduce their accomplishments to mere numbers. - Harvardton (talk) 01:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Harvardton (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. —Bagumba (talk) 02:10, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Praemonitus (talk) 01:40, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, none of those have their own articles pbp 20:12, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• No, but they seem to prove the principle that "international goals" being listed have community consensus, unless you can prove otherwise. Once a section of an article becomes too large, WP:SIZE, we split it off. That's why this article exists. If you want to delete this article, you want to delete international goals being listed in every article where they are listed. Correct? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTSTATS. I do not see any critical commentary that could be provided to supplement this stats listing. This is cruft. A pure stat listing of a players home runs was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Barry Bonds' 73 home runs during the 2001 season for the same reason. Articles are not WP:SPLIT just because they are long, but because the content being split is meaningful. Sorry, I'm not buying the OTHERSTUFF arguments without more convincing justification.—Bagumba (talk) 02:07, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bonds' season list is different, that's home runs in a single season in a domestic sport. This is career total goals in an international career, much more significant. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:10, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The common point that I see is a statistics listing where few sources discusses many of the entries at once (unlike in the presidential election example). With all due respect to WP:LISTN, my standards are slightly stricter when it comes to a list of statistics.—Bagumba (talk) 17:23, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Apart from The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Guardian, NBC, Sports Illustrated in a few seconds of looking? Oh, and FIFA seem to think her international goals are worth noting too.... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:42, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • The collective goals are notable. It just conflicts with NOTSTATS and CRUFT to have a statistical listing of each of 200+ games that included 155 goals. Perhaps the NOTSTATS policy can be clarified if I am in the minority.—Bagumba (talk) 18:57, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sure, I can start a few ideas here. There are three clauses to NOTSTATS, (1) Summary-only descriptions of works - not applicable since this is real. (2) Lyrics databases - not applicable, this isn't lyrical. (3) Excessive listings of statistics. Aha, this must be the one. So the policy goes on to explain "Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles. In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader". Okay, this isn't the neatest of lists, but it can be improved. So just say the word, we can improve it. Secondly, I think sufficient explanatory text is already available. Don't you? So please, we can either improve the article a shade to reduce its "confusability", or just summarily delete it, because I can't see anything else in NOSTATS that this article breaches. Unless you'd care to clarify? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Did I say you can't have a list of goals within an individual article? No. Did I say you can't create a seperate article that contains stats yes? It's either you have a list of goals under the main article of the athlete or you don't list them at all. If these pages are kept then we might as well create List of Barcelona goals scored by Lionel Messi, List of Real Madrid goals scored by Cristiano Ronaldo, List of Premier League titles won by Manchester United or aside from football, List of Touchdowns thrown by Brett Favre, List of World Series Titles by the New York Yankees, List of Home Runs hit by Barry Bonds, etc. But we can't do that. Why? Because it violates WP:NOTSTATS. Why are the articles I nominated any different? – Michael (talk) 05:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if you read WP:NOTSTATS and WP:DISCRIMINATE, this is clearly not an indiscriminate list and abides by the suggestions provided: "In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader. In cases where this may be necessary, (e.g. Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2012), consider using tables to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists." Hmlarson (talk) 16:56, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Plus all the examples you've provided are on a domestic level, this list is international in its coverage. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:13, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep although the article is clearly in a bad way, breaching a number of our manual of style article, that is irrelevant when determining notability. The parent article is long enough that to add this list onto it would not be viable, and it is my belief that given the extraordinary number of goals that she has scored, and that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopaedia this is a justified standalone list. Harrias ^talk 17:33, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Sorry, folks, but this list is just plain goofy and serves no significant encyclopedic purpose. (And, yes, for the record, I am an Abby Wambach fan.) We don't need lists of Babe Ruth's individual home runs, Dan Marino's individual touchdown passes, Michael Jordan's individual baskets, or Bobby Orr's individual hockey goals. Wikipedia is not a sports almanac, a fansite, or a sports blog. This is yet another example of the unsupervised fancruft that grows in sports articles because some folks don't understand the difference between an encyclopedia and a fan blog. It is an endemic Wikipedia-wide problem in that many contributors simply don't have a firm grasp of what an appropriate level of detail is for a given subject. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 09:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Point is that all of your examples are purely domestic and mean nothing to anyone outside the good ol' USA. Wambach's international goals have a global reach and are internationally significant, not just meaningful to the inward-looking NBL, NFL, NBA etc. You need to realise that international sport transcends the US borders, and is of interest to more than just the USA, unlike all the examples you've provided. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:33, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Unlike Dirtlawyer1 (talk), I'm not particularly a Wambach fan – a bit handy with her elbows for my tastes – ask Faye White! And this article could do with some more prose, less psychedelic colours and new title, but these are no grounds for deletion. Bagumba (talk), I don't see any precedent set at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Barry Bonds' 73 home runs during the 2001 season. One of the reasons it was deleted was apparently because the same material was already covered sufficiently at List of milestone home runs by Barry Bonds, which is (somewhat generously at first glance) a featured list. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 11:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, only one of the participants for the Bonds AfD cited duplication of List of milestone home runs by Barry Bonds. The consensus to delete in that case was pretty much due to NOTSTATS.—Bagumba (talk) 21:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is just statistic not an article.--NovaSkola (talk) 12:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not really a valid oppose, why should it be deleted? Is this just your opinion, do you not like it? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Scoring international goals isn't really a big deal; it's an honour, sure, but it's not a big deal, and I don't think it should even be listed in the biography article, let alone as a separate page. – PeeJay 14:03, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It really is a big deal, especially when you've done it 155 times. This list cannot fit into the main article, if you object to international goals being listed, I'll assume you'll be deleting those sections from Bobby Moore, Bobby Charlton, George Best etc? I'm happy to do that if you agree that international goals shouldn't be listed anywhere in Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • 155 international goals is pretty good, yes, but to be fair, women play more international matches than men do, so it may sound impressive compared to male records, but it's not really comparable. And yes, I would like to delete those sections from those articles. In fact, I think there was a recent consensus at WT:FOOTY to do just that. – PeeJay 22:43, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Interesting, could you point me to that discussion please? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:28, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have watched most of the discussions at WT:FOOTY during the last year, and I remember a discussion where there was a consensus to remove list of international matches, but I haven't seen any consensus to remove list of international goals. Mentoz86 (talk) 09:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment for all those voting delete, I'd like to ask if they would also ensure that all lists of international goals are removed from all international footballers, male and female, across all of Wikipedia. Voting delete here isn't really a vote to delete a standalone list which has become too large to easily be accommodated in the main article, it's clearly a vote to remove the existence of this kind of list of goals from Wikipedia altogether. What makes a "milestone" international goal? What makes a "notable" international goal? I don't know. What I do know is that having a factual list of international goals, sourced correctly does not do this computer-based encyclopaedia any harm. Deleting it, and therefore setting a precedent to remove all international goals from all articles possibly does harm what we're doing here. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do I have to run through this over and over again? Voting delete means people are voting to remove the two pages that I nominated. That's it. I never said a damn thing about removing a list of goals from every single page. – Michael (talk) 05:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's the implication of your nomination. You think these lists are not notable. Hence the information is not notable, no matter where it exists. There's a reason why a few of these lists have been spun off to standalone lists, namely WP:SIZE. If you want to delete these lists, you want to remove all such lists from Wikipedia. There's no other logical explanation. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:28, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This should not be bundled as an WP:ALLORNOTHING proposition. This is about the need for standalone lists which enumerate one-by-one over a 100 games worth of statistics. The community is capable of applying precedent when warranted, as WP:OTHERSTUFF is often cited when past cases are applied incorrectly.—Bagumba (talk) 21:23, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but deletion of lists of international goals, whether they be standalone or part of an article, is now contingent on this AFD whether you like it or not. Of course, I don't expect you to change your mind, but those who don't believe this list can stand alone really need to examine whether such lists can stand as part of a main article, since this information has been considered too much for inclusion there. We can improve this standalone list (note, AFD isn't just about saying "delete" it's about saying what you could do to save the list, something which I note many here haven't even considered, despite my invitation to do so). The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Im a frequent editor in sports-related articles, but football just isnt one of my areas of strong areas. Based on arguments I see here, and in my general sports editing experience, I have yet to see satisfactory justification for complete game-by-game statistics, even if it is limited to international competition. I'd be all for WP:PRESERVE if I saw a viable proposal.—Bagumba (talk) 23:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Abby Wambach: Honestly, I can't understand why I'm the only person who's voted merge so far. It's the perfect solution to the problem TRM poses above, while also making it clear that this doesn't deserve a standalone article pbp 20:12, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just WP:SIZE to contend with then. This list is branched out simply because it makes sense, if we consider the content suitable for a main article, then there's no reason not to consider it, with a suitable lead, and suitable sourcing, for a standalone list. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:15, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• There are plenty of articles which are LIST. A search for list of goals returns several hundred results. Harvardton (talk) 16:23, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the topic (i.e. goals scored by Abby Wambach and Christine Sinclair at international level) has not been covered in -depth by reliable, third-party sources. It is therefore not notable. GiantSnowman 20:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Abby Wambach. Don't really see the relevance of WP:SIZE, the info would be in a collapsible table not affecting readability - or reading time, note that a collapsible table for goals already exists at the parent article - and the two pages together, without any kind of stripping, would be under 60k (based on article sizes of 53,710 and 4,916). SIZE says an article of 200KB would be commonly split, 60k is well under this limit. Also note that reading time would be significantly reduced if the article was trimmed, for example the 34 types of assist she has received - which, by the way, looks completely WP:OR. Therefore the logical conclusion would be to remove all the original research from the list, then merge it into a collapsible table in the parent article. C679 21:13, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't find the guidance, but sometime, a long, long time ago, in a far away galaxy, I was taught that content of a page should never "by default" be collapsed. Otherwise, I don't dispute most of what you're saying. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I am well aware of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but lists of international goals exists in hundreds or even thousands or articles on footballers across Wikipedia. These female footballers, have scored more goals then any other footballers (except Mia Hamm) and having these lists in the parent article would be problematic due to the size of the list, and I agree with The Rambling Man that lists like this shouldn't be collapsed in articles (isn't that what WP:COLLAPSE says?). When we do have lists of international goals in every article on international footballers, we should also allow the biggest lists to be stand-alone lists per WP:SPINOFF. Mentoz86 (talk) 09:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP is not a fan site. Mootros (talk) 06:54, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't a "fan site" article, it's a list of international goals which is too long to be hosted in the main article, per WP:SIZE. The Rambling Man (talk)
• Delete That's what fansites are for. Wikiuser100 (talk) 11:44, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't a "fan site" article, it's a list of international goals which is too long to be hosted in the main article, per WP:SIZE. The Rambling Man (talk)
• Keep: Notable component of this particular football player's accomplishments that has achieved media coverage for this particular accomplishment. --LauraHale (talk) 12:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both articles. There are sections in their individual articles describing their international accomplishments, a detailed list of every goal goes beyond the scope of this encyclopedia. It would be like a list of every ace achieved by Serena Williams in an international tournament. I appreciate the amount of work that went into this, but perhaps it would be better received in a football Wikia. J04n(talk page) 20:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rubbish. Serena will get 20 aces in a match. An international footballer will be lucky to score 20 goals in their entire career. So, to reiterate, "20 aces in two hours", "20 goals in 20 years". It just so happens this lady has scored a lot of goals, which is why her list of goals remains notable. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:15, 19 April 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. J04n(talk page) 00:38, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Victoria's Secret Campaigns (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)

Content is basically just a copy-and-paste rehash of info in Victoria's Secret and Victoria's Secret Fashion Show under a name that the media doesn't cover as a topic.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 18:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unencyclopedic list cruft. Carrite (talk) 20:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a topic appropriate for an advertising trade journal but not an encyclopedia. Major campaigns may themselves be notable, but a list of particular campaigns is a miss. BennyHillbilly (talk) 09:22, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unencyclopedic content. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 14:58, 14 April 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. J04n(talk page) 00:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jaidee (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)

Software project with no claim to notability. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 4 April 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,  Sandstein  18:20, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I can find no coverage whatsoever in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:22, 15 April 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 Ma Ke (fashion designer). J04n(talk page) 00:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

EXCEPTION de mixmind (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)

Speedily deleted twice, prodded once; I think this needs deletion and WP:SALTing. Boleyn (talk) 19:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment/suggest merge and locked redirect to Ma Ke (fashion designer) - The designer behind the brand is pretty notable. A locked redirect seems logical here. Mabalu (talk) 09:10, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I haven't heard of a locked redirect before, but this sounds like a very good solution. Boleyn (talk) 12:13, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete very spammy. SalHamton (talk) 22:17, 7 April 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,  Sandstein  18:17, 12 April 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:42, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Berner (supercentenarian) (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)

If "being a supercentenarian" does not, in itself, qualify one for their own Wikipedia article, then this article defeats itself. The infobox clearly says that Carl Berner is "know for being a supercentenarian" and nothing else. He was the fifth oldest living man upon his death, but he was not the oldest in the Western hemisphere (James Sisnett) or in the United States (James McCoubrey). He was the oldest man in New York City, but the oldest person in the City as well as New York State was Susannah Mushatt Jones. As such, he does not even warrant a mention on the List of the oldest Americans by state. Finally, he is not among the list of the verified oldest people or one of oldest people generally. I conclude that this article be deleted.Ricksantorum2012 (talk) 23:27, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He received significant news coverage and was known for his work as a community activist and toy maker. Also, he was the oldest living man in the Northeastern United States at the time of his death, as well as the oldest living German-born man. He was also the oldest living German emigrant at the time of his death. He is also the second oldest German-born man ever, and the oldest German emigrant man ever. Futurist110 (talk) 08:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep based on ample reliable and verifiable coverage about him as an individual. Alansohn (talk) 18:46, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Less notable than Susannah Mushatt Jones who was deleted for lack of notability. Could possibly be merged to List of supercentenarians from the United States but does not seem notable enough to even fit in there. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:22, 11 April 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,  Sandstein  18:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as not satisfying WP:BIO. I'm no impressed by claims someone is inherently notable because they are the oldest person of some particular national origin or in some arbitrary subdivision of a country. Edison (talk) 01:14, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't being the oldest German male emigrant ever notable? Also, for the record, Carl Berner was discussed in the media since at least 2002 (when he was 100), if not earlier. Futurist110 (talk) 06:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep being "second-oldest living verified American man" does not make one per se notable, but significant coverage does. Bearian (talk) 17:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep as per Bearian's comments. ♫☼Rosa Clegg☼♫ talk 00:23, 19 April 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. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:41, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Economy and Finance (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 journal. Despite what is claimed on its homepage, not included in the Science Citation Index Expanded (see http://ip-science.thomsonreuters.com/mjl/). No independent sources, not indexed in any selective major database. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 20:59, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment From the Journal-Impact-Factors.doc document downloadable on this ISI page, the journal has an impact factor of 1.087 (under the title "ECONOMY AND FINANCE") as of Feb 2013. Per item 2 in the section WP:NJournals#Notes and examples, the existence of this impact factor from ISI would seem to indicate that the journal is notable. But I don't know how this squares with the journal's absence from the Science Citation Index Expanded Source Publication. --Mark viking (talk) 22:46, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Mark, I don't know what's going on either. However, I'm quite sure that "isisjournalsearch.com" has nothing to do with ISI (note that the URL -and website- say "ISIS", not "ISI"). This journal is not in the JCR, hence it has no Thomson Reuters impact factor. I can't imagine that TR would not include an economics journal with an effective IF of 1. So where this "impact factor" comes from or how it was calculated remains unclear. I agree that if this were indeed an ISI IF, that would make the journal absolutely notable. --Randykitty (talk) 08:39, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for helping sort this out. I was misled by the title in the web page, "ISI - Journal List". But you are correct, this is nothing official from ISI. The uncertain origin of this impact factor means we should probably discount its contribution toward notability. --Mark viking (talk) 16:36, 28 March 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, J04n(talk page) 10:16, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep I can't see any harm in this article staying up. Is there a Russian page it could go on, or link to as a redirect?Sophiahounslow (talk) 07:59, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If an article could "do harm", then it would be a CSD, not an AfD. Having a bio of my gardener does no harm, but isn't very encyclopedic either. If "no harm in staying" were an argument at AfDs, then we could basically stop having them. --Randykitty (talk) 09:02, 9 April 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,  Sandstein  18:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I looked again and failed to find independent sources. With the above mentioned impact factor of dubious origin, I cannot find any notability criteria in WP:GNG or WP:NJournals that the journal satisfies. This suggests deletion, with no prejudice to re-creation if the journal eventually gains notability. --Mark viking (talk) 18:41, 12 April 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Naftalan, Croatia (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:PROMOTION for a WP:NN and recently established spa. There's a city with the same name and it's also an old name for naphthalene, so it's a bit hard to search for, but I couldn't find any references in reliable sources. The only references in the article are to the spa's website and a press release republished in a local tourist guide. Pburka (talk) 02:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep or Defer - I'm not sure it really is nn - most listed spas are quite small, and this one has an unusual attribute in Napthalene. I find it hard to assign notability to any sort of quack remedy, so am not sure how it is judged for spas. I think it could be as notable as any other spa. Yes, it reads like self-promotion, but has it been bannered for improvement before being AFD'd? I can't see any evidence of that. I think this is rather a heavy sledgehammer if it hasn't. The number of contributors in the Balkans is far lower than in other parts of Europe, and the same standard of maintainence can't be expected.--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but obviously clean up elements of excessive promotion. The topic is notable enough, mainstream Croatian newspapers Večernji list and Jutarnji list occasionally cover it and don't talk about it in terms of novelty, and it has an official status because the Zagreb County is its founder (it's not just some random commercial venture). --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:22, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 4 April 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,  Sandstein  18:06, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Joy. Promotional cruft can be eliminated via normal editing processes. Bearian (talk) 17:23, 16 April 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:FRINGE group with no support in reliable sources. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The International Society for Condensed Matter Nuclear Science (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 of notability in independent reliable sources (specifically, no indication of notability in non-fringe sources) a13ean (talk) 15:07, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A related page which I don't have time to AfD at the moment is The International Society for Condensed Matter Nuclear Science Prizes. a13ean (talk) 15:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. A cold fusion front but could be notable as a fringe science organization. Sources are not too great. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:48, 5 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete Non-notable organization. All sources are also very poor; nothing worth merging IRWolfie- (talk) 21:58, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The prize page is also non-notable due to lack of significant coverage in reliable sources, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with other related pages, eg International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science (referenced from Cold Fusion ) and The International Society for Condensed Matter Nuclear Science Prizes. As long as there is ANY article on CF, and as long as there is strong support by notable organisations, eg University of Missouri, which is officially hosting their 2013 conference --- it merits continuation. (I agree it needs editing). Alanf777 (talk) 20:07, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and a few fringe / unknown organisations participating in an ICCF18 workshop : ENEA http://old.enea.it/com/ingl/default.htm , University of Missouri, NRL and SRI are cooperating within the frame of an International Project supported by the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Joint Declaration following the 10th Review Conference on Scientific and Technological Cooperation between Italy and the United States of America for the years 2011-2013). The research field is on Metal Hydrogen Systems for Energy Applications. http://iccf18.research.missouri.edu/enea_workshop.php Alanf777 (talk) 20:55, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although Prof Yeong Kim of Purdue University is co-chair, Purdue is not an official sponsor. ENIA and National Instruments are now listed as Partners. http://iccf18.research.missouri.edu/

• Merge -- Cold fusion is apparently fringe science. It would seem that the society was formed out of the first ICCF, and is probably organising the subsequent ones. Participation from non-fringe bodies suggests that this is not completely fringe, perhaps because the objective (if achievable) is so desirable. However, we only need one article, and I would suggest that the others named by Alanf777 should be merged here. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:43, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ICCF is a fringe group, asserting it is not (and CF then by extension) is really a bit of an exceptional claim. The sources are poor, so there is nothing worth merging. IRWolfie- (talk)

• Delete: Lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent secondary sources. The material in the article is supported entirely by unreliable fringe sources, and there is sufficient reason to doubt the accuracy of what they report. I don't see anything that is reliably sourced enough to be merged. My own search for sources turned up nothing significant or promising. In fact, I have seen no credible evidence that this "organization" is anything but a single person with a fax machine. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can find even LESS information about the "International Society for the Study of Diseases of the Colon and Rectum" (A total of 31 googled links). Is it incorporated? Where? Who are its directors? Members?
The history of the ISCMNS is documented on their website http://www.iscmns.org/index.htm. It was incorporated in the UK 2004 and registered as a charity in 2006 : as part of that process it was specifically recognized as an International organization. It currently lists 212 members of whom I count 81 as belonging to a University, a government organization or a well-known company. http://www.iscmns.org/admin/list_of_members.htm (although not all have paid this years' dues). Alanf777 (talk) 22:56, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but why were you talking about a different society (the rectum one)? I also don't see the relevance of the rest of the ISCNMNS self-published claims, being registered as a charity in the UK is hardly particularly difficult or noteworthy. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:12, 17 April 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,  Sandstein  18:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Two weeks into the AfD, and I still see nothing that is supported by independent reliable sources. Still see nothing worth merging to any other article. I confirm my previous !vote to delete the article. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:02, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Insufficient secondary sources. PianoDan (talk) 17:10, 18 April 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 Speedy delete per blatant WP:HOAX. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 20:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Octavian David Constantinescu (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)

Possible WP:HOAX, but certainly fails WP:GNG. Creator removed BLP PRODS repeatedly but only added Reference links to modeling agencies which have no mention of this individual. A search [1] found no sources (only 47 google hits), let alone any significant coverage. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as an obivous hoax. The image is copied from [2] represents someone else (Francesco Monte). User:DigiTv1 has a history of creating hoax articles (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Katylen and ro:Wikipedia:Pagini de șters/Octavian Constantinescu). Razvan Socol (talk) 19:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Rsocol, for digging up that image and demonstrating this was in fact a hoax. The page is deleted and the user blocked for disruption. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 20:12, 12 April 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. J04n(talk page) 15:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

National Collective (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 lacks notability— Preceding unsigned comment added by RACHCIS2011 (talk • contribs)

• Surely the number of external references points out the site's notability by definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonygurney (talk • contribs) 11:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• National Collective does NOT lack notability. It is one of the leading non-political party blogs which support Scottish Independence and such blogs are absolutely essential given the almost 100% support of the main Scottish Media for NO to Independence. This current proposal smells to high heaven and is probably because the Blog wrote a highly critical article about one of the millionaire donors to the No campaign who has little connection to Scotland. He was also the CEO when the Company was convicted in a US Court in 2006 for gross violations of the 'oil to Iran' oil embargo. The Company was fined millions of dollars and had to pay similar amounts in restitution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.0.128.207 (talk) 18:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I wouldn't go for deletion. The threat of legal action may increase notability by generating references and press coverage in publications acceptable as sources to wikipedia- eg 'the Streisand Effect'. MrLukeDevlin (talk) 17:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• National Collective do not "lack notability". They are playing a vital part in providing citizen journalism and a space for artists, writers, musicians and creatives to engage in the campaign and referendum for Scottish independence. They are doing this against the back-drop of a highly biased UK media, and there is today a clear attempt to silence them after they produced an article detailing the nature of one of the major funders of the UKs campaign to keep Scotland from becoming independent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.176.105.138 (talk) 15:52, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Given the recent and ongoing developments in media regarding story run by National Collective on funders to the Better Together campaign, I think it does not lack notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.5.255 (talk) 14:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• National Collective seems significant to me. As a political organisation with hundreds of volunteers and a role in a major upcoming referendum, I would say that its page is of encylopaedic value - especially since it has played a role in a major breaking news story (the involvement of Ian Taylor with Better Together). Zcbeaton (talk) 15:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• National Collective is a very important part of the referendum debate in Scotland. Their ongoing fundraiser is generating thousands of pounds and their influence is widespread amongst the art community of Scotland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.81.116 (talk) 15:41, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Given that they've had one major video targeted for suppression by a political campaign, and that they broke (well, collated and published) a major story that has since been picked up by the Guardian, Scotsman, and Herald, I think they are well on their way to notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.153.253.183 (talk) 15:54, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The timing of this article being marked for deletion on the same day the site has been served with a cease & desist type letter would make any reasonable person profoundly suspicious of the motive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.166.221 (talk) 16:59, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't understand how National Collective can be considered for deletion. Alan Bisset is one of their key contributors. Alan Bisset is a keynote speaker at the launch of Yes Scotland campaign meetings such as Yes East Kilbride launch on 1st March 2013. National Collective is one of the key information sources out with the mainstream media on the campaign. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdamBDavidson (talk • contribs) 21:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Contrary to what other folk are saying, I don't think National Collective is going to become significant - I think it already is significant. More than enough references to National Collective in the media to satisfy the notability guidelines, and it has a part to play in the upcoming referendum. Let's not rush to delete it. Zcbeaton (talk) 02:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• If the Organisation itself is notable perhaps the article itself could be expanded a little to reflect this? Of the two paragraphs that currently make up the article the first talks of the groups establishment but doesnt really explain what the group does and the Alan Bissett reference as to what the group seeks to do is from more than a year ago. The Second describes an attempt to shut the group down. Anyone care to put anything in between? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.152.83.56 (talk) 10:10, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• who wants it deleted, the anti-independence brigade who are trying to hide their misdemeanours at least and downright criminality at worst. In the realisation that we need fair and democratic process, then silencing the opposition, who are bringing out the truth is wrong. In this respect alone National Collective are correct and should be allowed to remain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.174.164.164 (talk) 12:44, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, recent publicity due to the dispute over Ian Taylor's donation to Better Together means that it satisifies WP:N and WP:V. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 17:44, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• [This AfD came to my attention via Twitter I think. I should also confess that the artwork on my Facebook page is courtesy of National Collective.] This BBC clip (Newsnight Scotland, 10 April 2014, approx 03' 10" to 05' something) featured a discussion of the NC/Taylor stushie between Gordon Brewer (BBC) and Severin Carrell (Guardian). Brief mention in this Herald snippet and again in Euan McColm weekly stream-of-consciousness-from-a-shed piece here in Scotland on Sunday. I believe this also came up on BBC Scotland's Good Morning Scotland news show (on 10 or 11 April 2014 if anyone is inclined to look for the clip). I am thinking that a merge to the Ian Taylor article of the NC/Taylor thing wouldn't make the BLP police happy, especially if (as Carrell on Newsnicht and Robbie Dinwoodie on Good Morning Scotland yesterday both suggested that it would) this runs and runs. If the affaire runs down, quickly or otherwise, then the matter might be revisited with a view to merging content, but for now I am inclined to keep the article. There's no deadline after all. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:20, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• National Collective mentioned in The Herald today: [3]. BBC News segment on National Collective expected to air tonight. Definitely notable now, if not before. Zcbeaton (talk) 13:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep National Collective is a significant apolitical grouping within Scotland, deleting this article would appear to be akin to the Persecution of Falun Gong in China (albeit on a much smaller scale) by WP. Brendandh (talk) 11:59, 19 April 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. Wizardman 04:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Singleton (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 former minor league ballplayer. Previous afd resulted in a consensus to merge but since the player is no longer active he should be deleted. Spanneraol (talk) 17:26, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 17:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the other afd for this guy, in addition to the one listed in the box. Spanneraol (talk) 17:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I supported deletion before. Still fails WP:ATHLETE. This shouldn't reconstituted at all. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:15, 12 April 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. J04n(talk page) 15:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Josephine Butler Rugby Union Football Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Completely WP:NN intramural sports club at Durham University. Not even close to passing WP:ORG or WP:GNG Toddst1 (talk) 16:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete absolutely no notability. No references. noq (talk) 20:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 13:31, 15 April 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 Journey to the West characters. If someone feels strongly that it should be redirected elsewhere feel free to change it. J04n(talk page) 21:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fake Sun Wukong (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)

Going to get nommed sooner or later, so self-nom it is. Deletion rationale: Fails general notability guidelines (?) ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 15:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep I'm leaning towards weak keep as there IS some coverage and this is one of the more prominent characters in the novel... A bit like the bald man with the long nose. Cheers, ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 15:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Journey to the West. It's a Fox! (What did I break) 16:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Based on my knowledge, there is only "Sun Wukong", and no such thing as "Fake Sun Wukong". It also doesn't really make sense. People usually call the monkey "Sun Wukong", not "Fake ~". If something is nonexistant and you call it "fake", then shouldn't fairy tale characters have a "fake" in front of their names? Arctic Kangaroo 16:13, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sun Wukong, as everybody knows, is the main protagonist throughout the book, whereas Fake Sun Wukong is the six-eared monkey which appears in the lengthy chapter titled 真假孙悟空 (also 真假美猴王), in which this rare cosmic monkey takes up the form of Sun Wukong and steals their stuff. Really one of the more mention-worthy Journey to the West characters. A merge (to Sun Wukong) sounds sensible to me. @Arctic Kangaroo: Improve on your knowledge of Chinese literature ;) ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:13, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Wouldn't this be better off as a section under Sun Wukong? My perception is that this is an alter ego, rather than a completely different character within the story and I don't think it's notable separately from it. Funny ^Pika! 17:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I confused the character with something else. Funny ^Pika! 17:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To an extent, it can be classified as an "alter ego" -- the six-eared monkey seized upon Sun Wukong's negative thoughts to metamorphose into Wukong's appearance. That is, only externally, and the difference could still be told from beneath. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:13, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Sun Wukong - I agree with FunnyPika; this character is not sufficiently independently notable to justify its own article, but a mention at Sun Wukong might be appropriate. Neelix (talk) 03:31, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Merge to List of Journey to the West characters, or maybe Sun Wukong - notability is not inherited; just because Fake Sun Wukong is a character in a notable novel does not make him automatically notable. Fails the WP:GNG. ~ Satellizer el Bridget ~ ^(Talk) 07:58, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Chinese readers may find this useful in determining notability. Remember, WP:RSUE. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:13, 13 April 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. J04n(talk page) 16:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aram Grigoryan (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 does not pass WP:POLITICIAN. "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". No coverage other than the 1 reference in the article which is a brief mention and only shows the position the person held. Fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. A redirect of the page may be appropriate, but does not meet requirements for a stand alone article. FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 14:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The subject is neither an elected local official nor an unelected candidate for political office, so the deletion rationale offered is inapplicable. The part of WP:POLITICIAN that does apply is "politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature". Depending on how we interpret the status of Nagorno-Karabakh Grigoryan has held either national or subnational (statewide/provincewide) office. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Thank you for the rationale. I am not sure how to interpret his position, I am only going on you saying that he passes WP:POLITICIAN; however, I still do not see how he meets notability. As notability is not inherent from him being a politician who has held office, can you point to the WP:RS that establish his notability. Thank you. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 16:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:POLITICIAN is part of a notability guideline, and says that notability is inherent from him being a politician who has held office at national or subnational (statewide/provincewide) level. If you recognise Nagorno-Karabakh as an independent country then Grigoryan held office at national level, and if you don't then he held office at subnational (statewide/provincewide) level. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:08, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you again. The footnote to the section you cite, Section 1 under WP:POLITICIAN, states that holding office is a secondary criterion and that "people who satisfy this criterion will almost always satisfy the primary criterion," but doesn't state that they always satisfy the primary criterion. Unfortunately, this person does NOT satisfy the primary criterion of having multiple, significant, and reliable sources. There is nothing in there that states they are inherently notable. In fact, the footnote is clear that it is a secondary criterion.--FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 18:29, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Either the primary or the secondary criterion can be used to demonstrate notability, as is made perfectly clear by the final sentence of that footnote. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:53, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure that it is "perfectly clear." It states, "However, this criterion ensures that our coverage of major political offices, incorporating all of the present and past holders of that office, will be complete regardless." This is an "ignore all rules" type policy that is set out to make sure that Wikipedia lists those who have held major political offices, regardless of them receiving significant coverage. As implied by both of the keep votes at this point, I do not think anyone would consider the office that he holds as a major office and therefore the secondary criterion would not apply. If so, we could list anyone who has ever been in a "political office" in any country in the world. Also, I feel that if his political office was a major one, there would be an article here in Wikipedia listing such or some significant coverage about the position. Again, as it is not a major political office, second criterion would not apply and significant coverage would be needed. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 20:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A government minister in the effective government of a de facto independent country is a major political office by any reasonable definition, including the definition in WP:POLITICIAN that I have already quoted several times above. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:32, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I think under any definition, a "major office" includes individuals who create and shape policy for a nation or a subnational government. This is how I interpret the intent of WP:POLITICIAN. The guideline does not state that all elected officials should have a page on Wikipedia, and the guidelines exclude local elected officials. Enos733 (talk) 03:34, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject is (was) an elected member of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic national assembly and would meet WP:Politician. The Nagorno-Karabakh Republic is only recognized by four other nations, though. Enos733 (talk) 17:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I would pose the same question to you as well. Can you point to the WP:RS or are we to just assume that he is/was an elected member of the national assembly based on a brief mention as opposed to significant coverage in reliable sources? Thank you. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 17:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Significant coverage is not required for verification of facts, such as Grigoryan's ministerial position. All that is required is a reliable source, which we have. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:12, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets WP:POLITICIAN in any event, and there is a strong presumption that significant coverage exists in reliable sources published in languages other than English. No substantive reason to distrust the existing source has been offered. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I don't think a former deputy minister of health and a present MP of an unrecognized state is really notable for a stand alone article. Grandmaster 17:06, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• State legislators in Wyoming are accepted without question as notable per WP:POLITICIAN, so I don't see why an equivalent from a territory with far greater geopolitical importance should not be so accepted. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Deputy ministers are notable, whether of fully recognised states or not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:53, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Does the minister have an article? I couldn't find one and it seems rather odd that a deputy minister gets to have an article, but not the minister. I'm leaning towards "delete" at this point. George Spurlin (talk) 18:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The minister certainly should have an article, but if it hasn't been created yet that is not a reason to delete an article about the deputy minister. Wikipedia is far from complete. WP:POLITICIAN doesn't require that subjects should be ministers or deputy ministers - it's enough that they are legislators at the national or subnational (statewide/provincewide) level, one of which applies to Grigoryan. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:57, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It is clear that members of the Nagorno-Karabakh assembly are notable. The article needs to be rewritten, but the person is clearly notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per Phil Bridger. He is definitely a notable figure due to his service as a minister of a significant self-autonomous republic. Anyhow, I am in the process of improving the article as well. Proudbolsahye (talk) 20:36, 17 April 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. J04n(talk page) 15:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Definitive Collection of B-Sides & Rarities (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 itself says this is "unofficial". I see no sources out there to establish any notability. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:28, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 16:40, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. AnthonyJ Lock (talk) 04:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, no significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 13:30, 15 April 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. J04n(talk page) 16:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Just another web developer with no signs of significant notability. Local awards as a "man to watch" indicate he may become notable, but not really notable yet. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I don't see any significant coverage for this guy. NickCT (talk) 15:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "Comment" The author has three published books from a commercial publisher. ([4]) LaurenTGC^ChatMe! 20:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)— LaurenTGC (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Comment Note that the page has been moved to Jeff McWherter since the nomination was made. If the outcome of this discussion is delete, the closing admin should delete both the original and renamed articles. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:13, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No evidence of notability. The article is clearly promotional. The creator of the article has no other contributions Adblock2 (talk) 03:20, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "Comment" He is notable as a widely-published author. But I am certainly am new to this, so maybe there's a way to make it adequately objective?[5] LaurenTGC^ChatMe! 20:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)— LaurenTGC (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 13:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "Comment" I've included the link to his lastest book in the Library of Congress. [6] LaurenTGC^ChatMe! 20:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)— LaurenTGC (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete - The subject appears to fail WP:AUTHOR as I am unable to find significant reliable source coverage of their published works. Also appears to fail WP:GNG as I am unable to locate significant independent reliable source coverage of them as a person or author. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 00:19, 16 April 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. Secret ^account 05:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Bailey (drummer) (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 session musician. No signs of any significant independent coverage of this artist. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:36, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I couldn't find any reliable sources whatsoever that could help establish the topic's notability. smtchahal^(talk) 15:21, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No sources to support notability in the article, nor could any sources be found by myself. AnthonyJ Lock (talk) 04:41, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 15:00, 14 April 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. Wizardman 15:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The New Blue of Yale (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 college a capella group. No third party sources, which are required under Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Does not meet alternate guidelines of Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria musicians and ensembles. Expired PROD reversed on procedural grounds. GrapedApe (talk) 12:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I couldn't find any reliable sources for this group. --Cerebellum (talk) 17:46, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 15:00, 14 April 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

A short-lived band that is hanging its fame on the fact its founder was a member of Pulp. Most of the article is about what happened subsequently to its members. The article has remained unsourced for 5 years! I can't find anything to indicate Venini meets any notability criteria. Sionk (talk) 13:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Russell Senior. MusicOMH gave them a bit of attention[7][8] but they don't seem to have done enough or received enough coverage to be notable themselves. However, it's possible there is more material in late 90s print magazines. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:49, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Russell Senior. At the moment the amount of sourceable content is small, but there are sources available, e.g. 2 from the NME: [9], [10]. --Michig (talk) 17:52, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to keep - improvements convince me that this is worth keeping as a separate article. --Michig (talk) 04:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I don't think this is a good candidate for merging as Russell was not the only notable member of the group. I'll take the time to fix the sources if it's left alone for a couple of weeks. It's been difficult previously because music magazines from the mid-late 90s tend not to be online, but more has become available recently, as noted above. As for basic notability, they clearly meet critera 1, 4 and 6 of WP:BAND - it's just a matter of demonstating this in the article. 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (talk) 06:38, 7 April 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, J04n(talk page) 10:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I think that this page should stay because Russell is not the only important member of the band who this page should be linking to. the man from ladytron is here as well and people using the ladytron page should be able to come here to find out about his non-ladytron work rather than have to go to russel seniors page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.113.164.145 (talk) 14:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Russell Senior, which seems to be a good target, already mentioning the band in some detail (casting my 'vote' as nominator). Sionk (talk) 00:45, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - can previous voters please take a look at the improvements I've made to the page before any action is taken. 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (talk) 04:09, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per improvements, WP:HEY. Borderline notability, but surely meets WP:BAND#6, more weakly WP:BAND#1 and #4. Cavarrone (talk) 08:54, 14 April 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 socking allegations being thrown around, it is impossible for me to determine a clear consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Lalić (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)

2131 is not in anyway an exceptional chess rating in the scheme of things. Another 169 points are required just to be an FM. Writing articles for CHESS magazine does not a notable person make (I have had an article published in a well known publication, believe me when I say that you haven't heard of me!), and neither does being the son of a Grandmaster. Personally, I am within a few Elo points of this person, and I am strong enough to understand how little I know about the game. Given that this person's entry on wikipedia relates to them being a chess player, they should at least be of FM standard to be afforded an entry. Mendoza2909 (talk) 00:51, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hesitant Delete; there don't seem to be enough sources to establish notability at this point. 069952497a^{Comments and complaints}_{Stuff I've done} 13:10, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• At most Weak keep -- It looks as if he is on his way to bigger things. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:27, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- Personally, I am also within a few Elo points of this person, and I agree that his Elo rating alone does not make him notable. However, I think being the youngest ever regular contributor to the CHESS magazine and the youngest ECF certified coach makes him notable. M701 (talk) 04:09, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep -- Peter is certainly notable, firstly because his FIDE ELO rating is >2000, which makes him an "expert" class chess player at the International level and he has also received the United Kingdom/British Chess distinction of "National Master." He has a massively popular YouTube Channel with more than 600 chess video analysis uploads, and his channel has been ranked as one of the top 10 chess YouTube channels in the World by a major chess news and analysis blog. That's not just notable, but an absolutely remarkable achievement since only a handful of people have maintained a prominent YouTube Chess Channel successfully. Peter is also the son of two Grandmasters...certainly a very notable distinction considering I've heard of no other expert class or better chess player having BOTH their parents as Grandmasters...Peter's father, Bogdon Lalic has written chess books, and his mother, Susan Lalic, was the top British Woman Grandmaster for the majority of the 80s and 90s. Because Peter has followed in their footsteps, his relationship to them is obviously significant. And certainly his age alone qualifies him as a prodigy since he achieved expert level at the age of 16 or 17. I actually question why Peter's article is up for deletion in the first place. The first comment from Mendoza2909 sounds very berating and does not acknowledge any of Peter's very notable characteristics, which makes his position clear: it's not a very open-minded critique of Peter's notability in the chess world, and a total disregard for all the citations and public references supporting all these points of notability. It seems to me someone doesn't like Peter and is using this speedy deletion nomination process as a troll-like reprisal. There are more than enough publicly-verifiable sources to establish this emerging prodigy's notability, and this article is very informative. Keep this article by all means. Piewalker Piewalker 19:42, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Without regard to this particular article--I do not understand the ranking system well enough to trust my judgment about it-- we have normally been very reluctant to accept notability on the basis of being a prodigy-- at having attained a respectable level but not one which would have qualified an adult for an article. I could probably make a good case for doing otherwise, and accepting such notability, and similarly with youth awards and youth competitions of all sorts, and in fact I tried doing so when I came here 6 years ago. I didn't get anywhere then, and I doubt I would get anywhere now. It would be a significant change in our interpretation of notability in many areas, and I am pretty sure there would not be consensus at this time to broaden it to that extent. DGG ( talk ) 01:07, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply

Several points - 1. 19 years old is way too old to be an emerging prodigy. Actually it's not a prodigy at all. I am in my early 20s. Maybe I am not emerging any more, but do I still get to be a prodigy, given my rating of over 2100?

2. Apparently my first sentence sounds very berating. I would reply that my rating is within 10 Elo points of Peter so actually, I am completely honest as I know exactly of what I speak. Our ratings are close enough that if we played 100 games, our current ratings indicate that Peter would win about 51-52 and I would win 48-49. (Feel free to correct me anyone, but I'm not far off). In reality, there is enough margin of error in the elo rating system that it is impossible to detect a real difference in our standard. As I said, I know enough about the game and my own place within it to know that I am not an expert. At a stretch I would call myself a very good club player. By extension, I would call Peter a very good club player, no more.

3. National Master is a title created by the British Chess Federation. It is not internationally recognised. Once you have reached a certain standard, you pay a fee and you get awarded the title. Many players don't bother and save a few pounds. In my view it is there to create a bit of extra cash. All due respect to Peter for having earned this title, but he has such a long way to go before reaching an internationally accredited title. I'm sure it's a very impressive thing to say at parties to non-chess players, but chess players should be under no illusion that it is anything other than recognition of a strong club player. If he ever reaches FM I'm sure you'll find that National Master title disappears from his CV very quickly.

4. You say that Peter Lalic is an "expert" class chess player at the International level'. I would bet a lot of money that Peter will never play in a senior international competition for Britain on merit. Glorney and Faber doesn't count in my book unfortunately.

5. Is being 153rd ranked chess player in Britain a notable achievement? Really?

6. Chessgames.com... hmm... Play in an international open tournament and your games will likely end up on a database. Especially if you played a GM in the first or second round (because your seeding is that low) and lose.

7. The guy obviously loves chess, wants to improve and submitting articles to a chess magazine is a part of that. But it's something anyone of certain standard can do. Write enough articles and eventually they'll get published. Doesn't mean I'm a good player. Or that anyone over 2200 won't just skip over the stuff he writes. Yes, I've read some of it.

8. This person William Stewart. He ranks Peter's channel as one of the top 10 chess channels on youtube. Apparently he is famous. I have never heard of him. Believe me when I say most people haven't heard of him. He doesn't have a Wikipedia page (a general indicator of notability) despite being ranked 150 points higher than Peter. He is however a chess coach, like Peter. Maybe they have heard of each other. Maybe they have even met each other. Who knows? Anyway, I will repeat he is not famous, nor a chess player that the general chess public will listen to, therefore his opinion should not be counted. This should be higher up the list, but I am on a roll.

9. I have never met Peter Lalic. I have no reason to dislike Peter Lalic. I dislike this Wikipedia page as it attempts to portray a strong club player as something he is not.

10. It is obviously significant that he is the son of two notable chess players, but this significance should surely come after the fact of establishing his own notability. I therefore disregard everything you say on the matter of his parents, although I will say...

11. Susan Lalic is not a Grandmaster. She is a Woman Grandmaster. The standard for achieving the title of WGM is lower. As a WGM, IM and 5 time British Champion (respect!) she is certainly deserving of an entry on Wikipedia. I am a man for the details!

Apologies for the formatting if it isn't good. By the way, I think myself a good player, but I know exactly where I stand among the greats, and that is precisely nowhere. I know enough to appreciate their greatness and to strive for it myself, even if it's only for one game.

Mendoza2909 ( talk ) 16:03, 8 April 2013 (GMT)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 10:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Definite keep -- There seems to be absolutely no harm in keeping such a person, and no good reason to try to remove him. As somebody else pointed out, he is the youngest person ever to become an official coach of the English Chess Federation, and also to write for a reputable magazine (which even I have heard of!). According to this website (http://www.everymanchess.com/chess/books/Play_the_Accelerated_Dragon), he has also been contracted by this well-known book company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.155.106 (talk) 18:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Further Reply -- Found on the English Chess Federation website. How to become an ECF accredited coach. http://www.englishchess.org.uk/coaches-2/

ECF Accredited Coaches ECF Accredited Coaches have fulfilled the following requirements:

1) They hold an Enhanced CRB Clearance, which is less than three years old.

2) They have supplied two professional character references to the satisfaction of the ECF.

3) They have supplied the Manager of Coaching with details of previous coaching or teaching experience.

4) They are a current ECF member.

Actually this is ridiculous. He is touted as the youngest ever coach in the ECF. All he had to do was have previously taught in schools and pass a criminal background check. So much about this article screams mediocrity (compared to anyone, you know, notable). 2131 ranking, 17th in British championships, National Master, Board 3 of the U-18 team. He played in the British championships, therefore his games will get onto chessgames.com. (The highest rated player he beat in that competition was 2271. Nothing special. I've beaten a 2400. I'm sure he has too.) Altogether it adds up to an above average chess player (and not more). By the way, the Glorney Cup only involves Ireland, Wales, Scotland and England, so again his board prize sounds impressive until you realise that he was competing for it against 3 other people.

I realise it does sound like I have some sort of vendetta here. I don't, have never met the guy. As regards playing strength, the internet does have a habit of providing anonymity, but if you choose to believe me, my Elo of >2100 means I know what I am talking about. I think this page is an abomination and that is why I am still here, writing this message. Every playing achievement listed here has been painted in a far rosier light than is actually the case. So has the coaching achievement. He's not a chip off the old block, as it is unlikely he will ever reach the playing strength of either of his parents. That's the way chess goes, it is a young (wo)man's game.

If you think that contributing regularly to a magazine makes him notable then so be it (How regularly is regularly?). If that is the case, then can I suggest a substantial rewrite of everything else here, as he should be listed primarily as a chess contributor. Or perhaps as a chess coach. Certainly not as a chess player though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mendoza2909 (talk • contribs) 01:00, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There's no inherent notability, like for pro athletes in football, for being a chess player at this level. way below the top, and certainly notability cannot be inherited from mom and dad. There is no inherent notability for being a contributor to a specialized magazine. Most of the refs are very specialized and only have score listings or brief mention. Has a source such as the BBC or the Times had significant coverage? Does not appear to satisfy WP:BIO at this time, though if he advances in the field he might in the future. Edison (talk) 01:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The notion he's a notable chess prodigy is downright silly; here is a list of the strongest players born in 1994, and Peter Lalić is nowhere to be seen. (He's #313 in the world among players born that year, and perhaps the top eight or so might reasonably be called chess prodigies. Of the top ten, only five have articles at the moment - the top five, as it happens.) In short, he isn't notable as a prodigy or as a chess player... and for him to be notable for his magazine or YouTube contributions, he'd have to meet WP:AUTHOR, which he does not. Sideways713 (talk) 09:46, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Note Piewalker (talk), who strongly advocated keeping this article, is using his YouTube channel to advertise Peter Lalić and his coaching services and would thus seem to have a conflict of interest here. Sideways713 (talk) 13:13, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - seems notable for age/family. Plus given immediately prior sockpuppet case and chess AfDs continuing April 1 with User:Lampenstein see no reason to encourage easy deletions here. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:44, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I personally think it's too early to recognize Peter Lalic as notable. I seriously doubt, if it weren't for his name and famous parents, that the world outside of the UK would know much or anything about him. It could only be through his regular monthly CHESS column, which is decent enough, but has only a kind of 'bits and pieces' type content that most strong club chess players could put together with a bit of application. Hence, if he is to justify an article, then I would say he needs to have his books/writings highly acclaimed in some sense, and/or gain the IM title (not just the FM title), or train a very successful player, if coaching is a route he pursues. Right now, I'm not sure he knows himself which activity he wishes to specialize in and we will only find out with the passage of time. As a long-time editor here, I am only applying the criteria that we have always used as a rule of thumb, and that is, (1) minimum GM title or (2) IM title with notable skills in some other chess-related activity. Clearly, there will be some exceptions (where someone has no chess title but is a leading figure in their field, e.g. the current FIDE President); however, right now I would put him in a category that is aspiring to meet the second criteria above, and he is not there yet. Brittle heaven (talk) 10:16, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not notable present. For those that think "expert" is a high chess title, other than World Champions, there are players with the Grandmaster title, then International Master title, then FIDE Master and Candidate Master. "Expert" is generally the same as "candidate master", a lower title. The chess project generally considers grandmasters to be notable. An International Master or below is not considered notable as a player, but they might be notable in some other way. I don't think that applies here - not enough to assert notability at this time. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 15:35, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Notability criteria: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published[3] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]" Lalic simply does not meet these criteria. No significant chess accomplishments and a rating insufficient to overturn the basic criteria. Sasata (talk) 15:58, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Insufficient notability. I agree with Brittle's "bits & pieces" observation; an article trumpeted on that basis gives feeling WP is being exploited for promotion by well-wishers. (Blech!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:03, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Nomination is by a sock puppet of indef-blocked User:OGBranniff. He's socked before recently, so this behavior isn't new. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/OGBranniff. Quale (talk) 16:39, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Hello. I appear to have registered this account and nominated this article for deletion at precisely the wrong time as it obviously looks suspicious. How would you like me to prove that I am not who you think I am? Mendoza2909 (talk) 17:02, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This nomination is getting a bit sinister! A closer inspection of the nominator has recently revealed some suspicious activity. Not only is he a known sock-puppeteer, but some of his reasons for deletion resemble a smear campaign! I don't know what this user has against Lalic, who just seems to be an honest chess person working up the ladder. It is obvious that the article doesn't claim him to be a prodigy; what makes him notable is the breadth of his contribution to the game: playing, coaching, writing, lecturing, etc. Many International and Grand masters cannot boast such an impact on English chess, especially at such a young age. Why delete the page when in a couple of years he will be titled anyway? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.2.25 (talk) 18:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those are very weak "Keep" arguments. And I supposed the opposite of a "smear campaign" is a promotional one. p.s. I don't care if the Devil himself or herself was the nominator, this article merits removal. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete in strongest possible terms. Hello. This article is obviously nothing more than a "puff piece" manufactured by pro-Slavic partisans in the British chess world. The subject's chess rating hardly rates him mention in his local Church Easter newsletter, much less on Wikipedia. And yes, his mother may be a "Woman's Grandmaster," whatever that is, but that hardly makes him notable on his own. Furthermore, his "contributions" to some chess publications merit no more notice than the "Letters from Readers" submissions in Boys Life magazine circa 1972. Those "arguing" keep here are regurgitating nothing more than pabulum. Thank you. Runsledale (talk) 00:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey OGB! (This isn't obvious? By intent or incompetence, that is what I long to know ...) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! How are you, Ihardly? More of the latter, however, I have no idea who this "Mendoza" fellow is, or why he is trying so hard to imitate Wiki_brah. In any case, have a good day. Thank you. Runsledale ^{Bang some sluts!} 01:37, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Runsledale is another sock of indef-banned user OGBranniff and block-evading sock Mendoza2909 (the nominator); again see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/OGBranniff. Quale (talk) 01:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Note - Runsledale has been blocked. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Sasata. "Bang some sluts!"—he had to let us know. Toccata quarta (talk) 04:02, 17 April 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 Nomination withdrawn. GiantSnowman 20:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Danni Jensen (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)

His only appearance in a fully pro match, came in the stoppage time against Vejle BK in 2008 [11]. He also played I have found nothing about this guy, since he had an unsuccessful trial with Norwegian club Bodø/Glimt in August 2011.

Even though he technically passes WP:NFOOTY, there is plenty of consensus in recent AfD's that playing a couple of minutes does not confer notability. This footballer also fails WP:GNG, as there isn't enough reliable sources out there that covers his career in detail. Mentoz86 (talk) 10:12, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Mentoz86 (talk) 10:13, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Question Are you saying that the article's [once cited] claim that he made an appearance in a UEFA Cup match is incorrect? Presumably the page is available on wayback? --Dweller (talk) 10:17, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• No, but I should have mention that one in my rationale: He also appeared in a UEFA Cup qualifier match against Cliftonville, but as the Northern Irish league is not fully pro, that match does not count NFOOTY; it is the one minute against Vejle that makes him pass NFOOTY. Mentoz86 (talk) 10:57, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Interesting. --Dweller (talk) 11:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For GNG, here is one piece of coverage. --Dweller (talk) 11:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but it's only the first paragraph in the "U-landslag" section that refers to Jensen, and that paragraph only says that he has played one match for FC København in three years, got 14 caps at youth international level, and that his contract expired that summer. I also found this, which says that Jensen did not get a contract with Bodø/Glimt because Mounir Hamoud did not leave the club, but that Bodø/Glimt was open to sign Jensen at a later point. This piece says that Jensen transferred to the amateur side Akademisk Boldklub, but that he was waiting for a new offer from Bodø/Glimt, while this says that Jensen will not wait for an offer from Bodø/Glimt, but instead look for another club to play for. I don't think that this is enough for GNG, but I anyone is better to look for sources than me, I will probably change my opinion. Mentoz86 (talk) 11:59, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have just updated the article on Danish wikipedia. In relation to his career he has played 5 matches for FC Copenhagen, one of them against Cliftonville FC in the UEFA League tournament. The match mentioned above against Vejle BK was a training match and is not included in the 5 "real" matches for FCK. Apart from Cliftonville FC he played against Viby IF in the Danish Cup (substitute after 62') and 3 other matches in the Danish Superliga. FC Copenhagen has just changed the format of its website, and apparently they have confused Danni Jensen with Daniel Jensen, so the three Superliga matches refers to three matches by Daniel, and not Danni. But the 5 matches are correct. It is not possible to deep-link into the new FCK-web site, so I cannot deliver a deep link, but information to the matches (and training matches) can be found on www.fck.dk.

After expiry of the FCK pro contract contract Danni Jensen trained with Akademisk Boldklub (Danish 1st Division) and Norwegian Bodø/Glimt. After the Norwegian team he joined Akademisk Boldklub, apparently as an amateur. In the Summer 2012 he moved to Boldklubben Avarta (Danish 2nd Division East) on a (semi?)pro contract. In February 2013 he moved to Boldklubben Frem, once a top club (six Danish titles) but today playing in 2nd Division. I expect his contract to be semi-pro.

He has made 14 appearances for the Danish national youth teams. There are links on the Danish article documenting the above, however, the time with FCK is a bit blurry on the new FCK-website.

The above are the facts. He meets the criteria on notability on Danish Wikipedia; whether this is the case on English Wikipedia is up to others to decide. Pugilist (talk) 15:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Plenty of first-team games verifiable, as per Pugilist. Pugilist, thank you so much for your help. Really appreciated. --Dweller (talk) 15:23, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Well, I don't doubt that what you are saying is correct, but neither is supported by reliable sources, not even in the article on Danish Wikipedia. His Soccerway profile claims he has played two official matches for FC København, the match in the UEFA Cup against Cliftonville on 31 July 2008 and the Superliga match against Vejle on 6 October 2008 (not a friendly match). Do you have any reliable sources to support your claim that he has played 3 matches in Superligaen, or that he played 5 matches in total? (The soccerway profile says he was on the bench for two more Superligaen matches, but I'm sure you don't include those in your counting) And do you have any reliable sources that covers his career after 2011 ? Mentoz86 (talk) 09:14, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above, the FCK-website has recently been updated making it impossible to deep link into player profiles. You therefore need to make a search on the player name from this site. If you search the player, you will find that he is noted for three Superliga games. Matches "on the bench" is not included in the statistics. Unfortunately, the update of the website is not perfect (to say the least) as the three delivered links to the three matches refers to three matches played by another player with an almost similar name. The Danish Wikipedia article contained matchinfo based on the previous more reliable FCK website. Pugilist (talk) 14:04, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the above, please see this article from a reliable website confirming the 5 noted matches for FCK. The article is in Danish; if you are not able to read it you can do a Google translate. The article on the Danish Wikipedia contains a link to the article from bold.dk. Pugilist (talk) 14:10, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When I search for Danni Jensen on the FCK-site, I get 5 matches total (without friendlies) with 4 of them being after Jensen left FCK, so I don't think we can rely on that site. I am Norwegian, so reading Danish isn't really any problem. "Førsteholdskampe" means "first-team matches", but that can include friendlies can't it? This article says that he got "one oficielle match" (én offisiell kamp) which in Norwegian usage means competetive matches (exluding friendlies). However, the discussion about how many appearances for FCK this guy got can continue on the talk-page, I'm withdrawing the nomination as I'm confident that this topic passes WP:GNG. Thank you for your help, Pugilist. Mentoz86 (talk) 18:56, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The new FCK-website has been improved the last few days and now contains reliable information. The 5 games for the player can now be confirmed. According to the website the 5 matches are one Superliga appearance, 3 Cup appearances and one UEFA Leage qualifier and 20 friendlies. Pugilist (talk) 22:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 12 April 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. J04n(talk page) 00:35, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Nicholls (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)

Official at Cambridge University, only reference to the University itself. According to the deprodder, he is clearly notable, yet I cannot find any articles in the media specifically about him apart from a snippet on the Times Higher Educational Supplement and one article in the local paper about his appointment. I'm not sure this is tha "significant coverage" required by WP:GNG. Number 57 10:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Yes, he is clearly notable. He is chief administrator (not just "an official") of one of the world's oldest and most prominent universities (and before that of two other major British universities: Warwick and Birmingham). He may not personally have a high profile, but he is notable by virtue of his office. And he does have an entry in Who's Who. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then perhaps you could improve the article and add some references to show notability? If only the office is notable, then there should be an article on that, not the office holders. Number 57 10:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree. Holders of notable offices are themselves notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Obvious keep. If he's in Who's Who then he is notable. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]

The only reference on the page currently links us to a list of news items. So, as it is all of this living person's personal details are not sourced, which means that the article should be deleted, unless it can be reliably sourced. Danrok (talk) 22:21, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - please remember to look in the obvious places such as Who's Who WP:BEFORE. Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (a) why would it be obvious to look in Who's Who, and (b) why would I have a copy of such a book or an online subscription to it? I spent several minutes looking for online sources and found almost nothing. Even with Who's Who, is this still "significant coverage"? Number 57 11:12, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why would it be obvious to look in Who's Who about a person in a prominent position in Britain today? Frankly, well, words just fail me... As to your second point, any library in Britain should have a copy of Who's Who and/or offer online access to it to members. Your not having easy access to a copy (i.e. not at the touch of a button) is not a good reason to nominate for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:48, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Surely if a current person is notable, there would be material about them in the online press. Do you really expect people to trawl libraries looking for books for references about someone currently in post? If words fail you, then you need to consider some serious changes to your attitude. Number 57 13:48, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we do expect people to do that. AfD nominators are expected to carry out WP:Before in a thorough and conscientious manner in order to avoid wasting the time of other editors. Xxanthippe (talk).

I read WP:Before, and it recommends doing online searches (which I did, and found almost nothing apart from the two links I provided in the AfD rationale), nothing about going to libraries to look through books. Even if this was the case, I would consider it incredibly unreasonable - if material about a current figure cannot be found online, then why would one expect to find it in a book? I can fully understand this being the case for a historic figure, but certainly not for now. Number 57 22:56, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't know that the Registrar of Cambridge University is likely to have an entry in Who's Who then you might wish to consider if you have enough knowledge of this area to edit usefully in it. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:07, 16 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Well said. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's exactly what we expect. The onus is on the editor nominating for deletion to check relevant major reference works to make sure the person is or isn't listed. Otherwise it sounds like a case of "I haven't heard of him so he can't be notable", coupled with "Google is the fount of all knowledge", both of which are exceptionally poor reasons for deletion. And it's not as if WW is exactly obscure. I would expect anyone nominating an article on a living British person to check WW before nominating for deletion, just as I would except anyone nominating an article on a deceased person to check Who Was Who, the DNB and The Times obituaries, inclusion in any of which confer likely notability. A large number of us do have access to these works. They are all online and they are all accessible online by members of most decent public libraries. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:38, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you really think that editors need to check Who's Who to find someone in the internet era, then something here is clearly broken. Number 57 08:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since WW is on the internet, I fail to see why. Heaven forfend that we should actually have to check a standard reference work! Far too much hassle, obviously. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep notable enough for inclusion. Tiggerjay (talk) 00:19, 20 April 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bettina Pelz (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 have been created by the subject or someone related to the subject in violation of the policy on conflicts of interest. Also, the subject is of questionable notability. Dusty|💬|You can help! 20:14, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Dusty|💬|You can help! 20:50, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:14, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:14, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:14, 29 March 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, J04n(talk page) 23:01, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• After nominating an article for deletion I usually prefer to stay out of the discussion and let the process take over. However I am still concerned with this particular article because of the apparent conflict of interest. I also find it unusual that all of the arguments on the talk page are by editors who a) have never contributed anything to WP other than the comment in the article's talk page. Some of the comments are from unsigned IPs and others from brand new editors who apparently got an account just to vote. I also further note that all of these editors overlooked the (to me) very obvious link to this discussion and instead edited the talk page which makes me question their independence. Finally, a cursory search on the internet reveals that Ms. Pelz is mentioned on a number of promotional sites but I could not find any online news article or similar reliable source. Most of the sources in the article appear to be from sites promoting the genre or specific events and are not reliable sources for establishing notability. I would feel much more confidence in the result of this discussion if at least some of the participants were establish WP editors. Thanks, Dusty|💬|You can help! 13:23, 11 April 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, Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 09:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per concerns raised by Dusty. Sources are largely prompotional and trivial - consensus against deletion appear to have violated WP:COI. hmssolent\^{Let's convene} _{My patrols} 09:36, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think there's a case for arguing she meets WP:CREATIVE as the creator of one or more notable works (her works being exhibitions or installations), e.g. Lichtrouten has some press[12][13][14]. However the existing article does not meet the requirements of a Wikipedia article on a creative individual: it needs to have an independently-referenced explanation of her importance as a curator (e.g. references to media or scholarly articles that explain her importance, not written by herself, her employees, colleagues or friends); a summary of critical opinions of her work (with references to reviews); ideally, information about her development as an artist/curator, influences, working practices, etc; and not just be a CV-style list of her various jobs and who she worked with. Virtually none of the references on the article currently provide independent analysis: this is a massive failure to produce an article that accords with Wikipedia policies. Someone fix it, please! --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:20, 12 April 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:22, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maya Grant (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)

Actress with very little indication of notability. As far as I can tell, she only has one major film role, and there's very little coverage of her to be found. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 09:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete until she gets more big roles and more press. The Hollywood News article is an interview[15] and therefore not a WP:RS reliable source. There's not much other press: just directories and listings. And she's only had one significant role according to IMDb. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:42, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Her IMDB UK entry has two credits. One of the sources doesn't mention her, another is literally just a headshot, one is an IMDB listing for the movie, and the other is a trade website for casting calls which shows her theater credits. This has no place on Wikipedia. --NINTENDUDE⁶⁴ 02:24, 13 April 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 speedily deleted G11 by INeverCry (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion). Housekeeping closure. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sins of the prophets (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 game mod; WP:GAMECRUFT. Does not seem to meet WP:GNG. Might be suitable for CSD but wasn't sure what exact category. Mkdw^talk 07:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable WP:GAMECRUFT, fails WP:GNG. (Could possibly meet CSD A1 if the definition were loosley-applied, but I think AfD is probably more suitable). — sparklism ^hey! 07:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Non-notable mod. If there happens to be a ref or two from a reliable source that demonstrates it being noteworthy out of the massive sea of fan-made mods out on the internet, then maybe put it as a single sentence in the respective Halo article or something. (Its a long ways from warranting its own article.) Sergecross73 msg me 16:19, 12 April 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 between keep and merge. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:22, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]