Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 October 25 Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2012_October_25

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 currencies.--Bitcoin (talk) 08:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of currency units (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 list largely duplicates information already listed at List of currencies, which is much more comprehensive. – Zntrip 01:50, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of currencies. Plausible search term, and redirects are cheap.--xanchester (t) 05:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge: List of currencies shows few fractions (such as dime, cent). —Tamfang (talk) 21:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of circulating currencies. Everything you want is already there. Faustus37 (talk) 01:56, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of currencies. List of circulating currencies is very discriminatory. --Bitcoin (talk) 07:55, 1 November 2012 (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. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:47, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:NF FunkyCanute (talk) 23:15, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails notability standards for films. Qworty (talk) 23:22, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Since no George L. Heredia page exists, delete The director himself MIGHT be argued to have just enough notability to merit a page of his own (and again, that's another debate altogether), but the nominator appears to be correct in their assertion that the film itself doesn't meet WP:NF guidelines. Sidatio (talk) 23:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Insignificant. TV | talk 23:47, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I could find no reliable sources. It seems this film is not notable. - MrX 23:50, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. So non-notable, unremarkable, even the director's page doesn't exist as what Sidatio said. Mediran ^{talk|contribs} 04:52, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, found anything significant in my searches. Cavarrone (talk) 16:51, 1 November 2012 (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. WP:COI aside, several editors have found sources which establish notability Firsfron of Ronchester 20:48, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Lore (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)

Nicholas Lore is a non-notable writer who has written the article himself [1], and who is looking for paid editing to finish the job [2]. The sources offered for notability are two hits from the New York Times, neither of which is about him. The articles just quote him, and as we all know, this does not meet the secondary-source requirement for notability. The only other news source offered is from a local Maryland newspaper. Obviously, this single source is insufficient for notability too. A number of very minor sources are also given, but all of them are primary, and therefore they cannot establish notability either. He has a book out, but it fails WP:BK and he fails WP:AUTHOR. In Nicholas Lore’s advertisement for an editor to work on his Wikipedia page, Lore says “I'm looking for the right person to do the following: 1) Wikipedia editing - and working on an existing page. There is a wikipedia page focused on me, Nicholas Lore, which needs some improvement. 2) Create a new article page for Rockport Institute (www.rockportinstitute.com) Please write back including what and how you charge. Either hourly or by the job would work for me.” The website where the ad appears, Elance.com, is the same site that’s been used by notorious sock-farmer Mike Woo [3], who’s been blocked an extraordinary 50+ times for the disruptive WP:COI editing that has netted him thousands of dollars for writing WP articles on non-notable people and their companies. So before Woo or some other disruptive paid editor can get here to puff-up the Lore article, or create the WP:ADVERT that he so desperately desires for his non-notable Rockport Institute, we need to defend the integrity of Wikipedia by stating our consensus here on the non-notability of both Lore and his company. Qworty (talk) 23:13, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:16, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Ridiculous. TV | talk 23:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Marginal notability and the article is very promotional in tone and substance. - MrX 23:56, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above, no significant biographical coverage other than interviews Gigs (talk) 01:03, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The two NY Times articles make statements about his work and background, in addition to indirectly (no quote marks) quoting him, and are significant coverage. The nominator went through the article and removed refs to the two New York Times articles as dead links, then removed the text they were there to support as unsourced.An article about him in a local paper was removed as a deadlink, as was the text it supported. A Wall Street Journal article from 1998 that purportedly said the older edition of his "Pathfinder" book was a national bestseller was also removed. It would be easy to check the accuracy of that info at a library. Someone with the 2 NY Times article, the lengthy local newspaper article, and who actually had a national bestseller, would have a good case for satisfying WP:BIO. If you can't click and see an article online, that does not justify your immediately removing the reference and the text it supports. Most libraries provide microfilm or online access to these papers. Another editor has since added online links to the 2 NYT articles and the local paper article. The Wall Street Journal is behind paywall, but that does not justify removing it as a deadlink. There was removed as a ref a book which said he was a friend and roommate of musician John Sebastian, and you can verified that it says that, though that does not contribute to notability. It could still be mentioned if the article is kept. Starting as a COI article is not grounds for deletion if an article satisfies WP:BIO. Material self-published by the article subject may be used in some cases, as outlined at WP:SELFPUB but it does not establish notability. Edison (talk) 01:21, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The NYT articles are online, you can find them by Googling. I read them. They included snippets of interviews from the subject, but they did not contain any significant biographical coverage of the subject. Gigs (talk) 02:05, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • These are the Times articles [4] [5]. Neither of them is about Nicholas Lore. I've been discussing AfDs for years now, and believe me, there are plenty of people quoted in the Times who believe they are a very big deal because of it, and they come here trying to make that claim, but in practice being quoted in the Times does not confer Wikipedia notability. The New York Times quotes hundreds of thousands of people every year in thousands of articles. Now, if Nicholas Lore had two articles in the Times that were actually about him, it would satisfy our notability standards for notability. Also, having a national bestseller is meaningless when it comes to notability. Per WP:BK, there needs to be substantial coverage of a book--a book that was not a bestseller but that had good coverage would be notable, and a bestseller that received no coverage would not be notable. Furthermore, having a notable book does not always transfer to author notability. So the fact that Nicholas Lore is alleged to have had a bestseller does not, in and of itself, place him close to notability per WP policy. There's actually a lot more to it than that. Qworty (talk) 02:36, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Google news archive search for "Nicholas Lore" and "Rockport" [6] shows 31 results. Many are hidden behind paywalls. I used my Highbeam account and found 14 results. One of them is [7] Nicholas Lore and the Rockport Institute: Great Source for Stories on Selecting and Changing Careers. Science Letter, November 11, 2008. It gives ample coverage in a full article about him. All the articles found quote him, he an expert in his field. So he meets requirement one of WP:AUTHOR The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. His book was apparently a bestseller, they mentioning it. The person has created ... a significant or well-known work, ... that has been the subject ... of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. He passes WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR just fine. Dream Focus 06:09, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Science Letter" is the best you can do? It's a newsletter [8]. Nicholas Lore probably provided the text himself, as he does everywhere. As for the other hits you cite, you admit yourself that he is only quoted. What we need is good strong secondary WP:RS, and it has not been demonstrated that it exists for this individual. Qworty (talk) 06:23, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • He is mentioned as an authority on his subject. And since I can't read most of the articles, I don't know what all they say. Dream Focus 06:29, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • You don't know what the articles say?! Well, that's certainly a ringing endorsement for the subject. And note that the policy requirement is not that he merely be mentioned as an authority, but that strong, solid, secondary WP:RS actually demonstrate that he is an authority. Anybody can submit his own text to a newsletter or a blog, claiming to be an authority. And what we know about Nicholas Lore is that he is a self-promoter who will stoop to anything. Qworty (talk) 06:45, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • The summaries can be read, and they show that reliable sources consider him an authority. Dream Focus 06:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm sorry, but that's just too vague for our purposes here. We need to see it in black-and-white with our very own eyes. Qworty (talk) 07:08, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • We need to be wary when dealing with someone who is clearly very self-promotional. It's entirely possible to buy or schmooze your way into light-weight journalistic pieces, and it's clear that the subject is not above paying off people to write about him in a way that seems neutral and objective. This factor should not be ignored unless it's clear that there is very wide spread and significant coverage. Gigs (talk) 17:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • If he knew there was anything wrong with paying someone to write an article for him, he wouldn't have been so open about it. Sounded like a harmless innocent request. Dream Focus 18:12, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • Yeah, mm-hmm, sure. Like a guy who doesn't "know" prostitution is illegal offering money to random women in the street. Qworty (talk) 19:31, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Is it even against the rules to hire someone? They had a debate about that not long ago. I don't recall a decision being reached. Dream Focus 20:35, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                    • He wasn't open about it. I uncovered it as part of an investigation into a (different) editor that I was able to correlate with a pattern of secret paid editing and possible sockpuppeting, subject to a current SPI that I filed. There are ongoing debates about paid advocacy as we speak, but the general consensus is that paid editors should disclose their conflict of interest, and should definitely not write flattering, promotional pieces like this article. WP:SOAP has always been policy. Gigs (talk) 00:06, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, however it must be noted that the methodology utilized to discuss the various techniques imparted through synonyms of both lexicon and vocabulary as well as words and phrases in a non-unique fashion for example first sentence here of subsection Career design methodology and the manner in which the language is given to use many letters strung together but bring across a meaning of very little substance — is most amusing. — Cirt (talk) 20:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - A published author that passes WP:BASIC per:

• Donaghue, Erin (November 12, 2008). "Potomac resident makes a living by tailoring careers". The Gazette. Retrieved October 25, 2012. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
• Korkki, Phyllis (September 11, 2010). "Job Satisfaction vs. a Big Paycheck". The New York Times. Retrieved October 25, 2012. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
• Korkki, Phyllis (July 17, 2010). "The True Calling That Wasn't". The New York Times. Retrieved October 25, 2012. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
• Vaughn, Susan (February 6, 2000). "Work & Careers; Career Make-Over; He Wants to Hang Up Stethoscope." Los Angeles Times.
• Vaughn, Susan (November 5, 2000). "Career Make-Over; Vague Goals Hurt Quest for Fulfilling Job." Los Angeles Times.
• Kahlenberg, Rebecca R. (January 1, 2006). "A Coach for Your Career Change; Outside Assistance Helps the Process End Favorably." The Washington Post.
• (May 11, 2008). "Career Guide a Great Present for Grad." St. Paul Pioneer Press.
• Trimarchi, Michael (March 17, 1991). "For Some Workers, Pinning Down Aptitudes May Help Attitudes." The Washington Post. (subscription required)
• (June 4, 2008). "Don't force a career." Kansas City Star. (subscription required)

—Also appears to pass WP:BKCRIT per the two book reviews above.Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - as per the NY Times articles - the subject has a degree of notability that is suitable for inclusion - Youreallycan 21:01, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above sources, appears to pass multiple guidelines. Cavarrone (talk) 21:57, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and per WP:AUTHOR (the guideline that should be used for this article). 22:11, 26 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alan Liefting (talk • contribs)
• Keep COI concerns aside, there is some substantial evidence of meeting WP:GNG] and WP:AUTHOR. Note that people who ask for articles to be about the subject for meeting notability are misguided: the guideline is explicit on this: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." --Cyclopia^talk 00:21, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Give one example of a mention in a source for this one that isn't trivial. Qworty (talk) 00:29, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cyclopia, the article doesn't have to be dedicated to the subject, but there needs to be a significant biographical focus on the subject. When that boils down to "We talked to this guy who runs a thing related to this subject and here's what he said about this subject", the only biographical coverage is the few words at the beginning of the sentence. We need to look at the kind of coverage that is going to actually allow us to write an encyclopedia article that isn't almost completely based on primary and self-published sources. If that doesn't exist, then the subject isn't notable, regardless of what any subject-specific notability guideline claims. WP:V is a policy, and WP:SELFPUB is as well, and if the article is not likely to ever satisfy those, then proclaimed notability under some misguided achievement-based SNG is an irrelevant secondary concern. Gigs (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per WP:GNG, significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Many journalists over a long period of time in the New York Times, LA Times, Washington Post have approached Lore either for a quote or to build an article around. It shows us that multiple independent reliable sources consider him a person of note to speak on career counseling. The article is already beyond a stub so concerns about not enough existing material for a bio doesn't seem accurate and there is no deadline on when the article has to be further expanded, we just wait for more sources. For example, I wish we could find a secondary source for the quote from Bill Clinton who praised Lore, but for now it's only primary[9] and can't be used. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:53, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes the GNG and WP:AUTHOR (Two books published by Simon & Schuster imprints). No consensus has ever been reached on paid editing. However, I am aware that many editors are biased against such entries. Also, I rarely disagree with Northamerica1000...  The Steve  08:46, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There absolutely is consensus on spam and self-promotion. If he had never created his article here, we wouldn't have an article on him, probably ever. You are rewarding a spammer for spamming. Gigs (talk) 10:58, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • We're not here to get even with someone you believe did something wrong. If he knew the rules, he would've just asked someone else to create it for him. He certainly has enough fans. And you don't know for certain this is the same guy. I just posted on his talk page to ask the editor to identify themselves. I notice you didn't even post on his talk page telling the article was up for deletion. Dream Focus 11:42, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wasn't the nominator. It's not about "getting even", it's about not encouraging abuse of the encyclopedia. Gigs (talk) 19:57, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's unfair to me and others who want to keep the article based solely on the sources. You are involved in a behavioral dispute which should be handled elsewhere, AfD is a content dispute. When you use behavior to influence content disputes it crosses the line. According to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard: "Accusing another editor of having a conflict of interest in order to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited, and may result in sanctions against you." -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:37, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's a straw-man argument. The sources are junk. Not a single one is about him. There's also a lot of primary sourcing, which is insufficient for notability, as you know. Qworty (talk) 21:18, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The solution to both spam and self-promotion is to Fix It. Many editors prefer to delete spammy articles that meet the GNG because it's easier and less effort, but I am not one of them. I've looked at the sources. They are not junk, this article meets the General Notability Guideline, and then some. One example, Donaghue, Erin (November 12, 2008). "Potomac resident makes a living by tailoring careers". The Gazette. Retrieved October 25, 2012. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help), is *all* about Mr. Lore.  The Steve  22:28, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I covered that source in the nomination--do you seriously believe that a single source in the guy's local newspaper meets the requirements of multiple secondary sources? A guy who's quoted in a few places and then has one article in his local paper is notable? That's not how Wikipedia works. Qworty (talk) 23:15, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, of course not. Have a look at Northamerica's list, his sourcing is always impeccable. However, that one source contradicts two of your own statements, "Give one example of a mention in a source for this one that isn't trivial" and "The sources are junk", which is why I used it as an example.  The Steve  23:42, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

so he's had an article in a local Maryland community paper? I'm just wondering where is the "significant coverage" factor of this guy. I believe this is spam too. Whitewater111 (talk) 03:04, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Green Cardamom, you are grossly misinterpreting that statement on the COIN page. That statement is no longer part of the COI guideline since the recent trim, but when it was on there, it was in relation to POV disagreements and factual disputes. We should, and do, consider the intention behind the creation of an article at a deletion discussion. We regularly delete or merge articles that fall afoul of policies and guidelines other than notability. Notability is not the sole criteria to be considered at AfD. That said, this article is pretty weak on notability to start with, if you consider, as you should, the actual biographical content of the coverage. Gigs (talk) 07:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - sorry, but I'm not convinced there is enough significant coverage of the subject for the subject to be considered notable. For the most part, the "sources" provided are not coverage of the subject but are coverage of other people or subjects with commentary from the subject or a mention of the subject somehow being credited with some of their success - that is not, as far as I am concerned, significant coverage of the subject. I think we need to distinguish between the subject and the advice the subject has given (effectively his "product", given he is a "consultant" or "advisor"). Acknowledging that the subject has given advice to others is not the same as giving significant coverage to the subject himself. He is providing a product and people have purchased that product. That doesn't make the manufacturer of the product notable, even if the "product" is verbal advice from the subject. Conrad Murray is not notable for being Michael Jackson's doctor (even now, his name redirects to his trial rather than a biographical article). In the same way, Nicholas Lore is not notable for giving advice to others about their careers or for the careers he has "re-designed", even if the advice or the "result" of the advice has subsequently been mentioned in media coverage. Even if we could somehow get our heads around the advice itself (under whatever name) being "notable", the subject would still not be notable for the products he has produced, as far as I'm concerned. Stalwart111 (talk) 23:55, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Major Delete as per WP:SELFPUB, and most to if not all mentions being trivial in nature. This "pay somebody to write something about me" mentality also stinks. Could this open the way for subjects being notable if they have enough money to pay editors. Not that I have any proof, but what is also worth considering that subject "X" may also be paying those to vote keep in deletion discussions. Just a little food for thought as well. Whitewater111 (talk) 03:16, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Fireside and Touchstone are both Simon & Schuster imprints. No vanity publishing here. The article does need work with respect to WP:AB, but it otherwise passes muster. Faustus37 (talk) 02:03, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Cited mentions are trivial (other than The Gazette) and mentioning them and the other marketing at work on the Internet is more WP:PUFF than WP:N. I'd also like to see the awards for his "award-winning" career. czar · · 19:02, 1 November 2012 (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. Article has been improved since discussion was opened Firsfron of Ronchester 20:42, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:BCAST, does not meet any criteria. The station is one year old so does not have much of a legacy. No reliable secondary sources on google about coverage, presenters or notability on google. Wikishagnik (talk) 06:35, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: As creator of the page being nominated for deletion, I would support merging the content and redirecting the page to KTGS, which is the flagship station of the network which KTMU airs the programming of. Eventually, I would favor creating a separate network article, and redirecting the articles of all affiliates which never aired their own independent content to this article. --Tdl1060 (talk) 21:18, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly do you mean by this statement - Eventually, I would favor creating a separate network article, and redirecting the articles of all affiliates which never aired their own independent content to this article. Are you talking about creating a seperate article for KTGS network? Is there anything notable about the network? OR are you suggesting a merge and redirect?-Wikishagnik (talk) 22:42, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am referring to "The Gospel Station Network", which is a network of 12 full power stations and 9 translators. All of the affiliates currently have articles, and I would support redirecting all full time affiliates to an article about the network, upon such an article's creation, provided that these affiliates were never independent of the network. The network is not called the KTGS network, but that station is the network's flagship station. In the absence of an article for "The Gospel Station Network", I would support a merge and redirect to KTGS.--Tdl1060 (talk) 22:57, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: If that's your intent I would recommend re-titling the article Gospel Station Network instead of using the call letters of one of its stations. Use redirects for the call letters. Faustus37 (talk) 02:29, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Tdl1060 (talk) 23:30, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:01, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment; The relevant content from KTMU's article has been added to KTGS's article, preparing KTMU's article to be redirected to KTGS, should consensus favor such an action. --Tdl1060 (talk) 01:47, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WilyD 08:22, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Keep after I have improved and expanded the article with secondary and third-party sources to improve verifiability and notability. The station was launched by one entity and is in the process of being sold to another that owns KTGS but there's no guarantee than the sale will consummate. - Dravecky (talk) 13:21, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 22:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Strong Keep: Per Dravecky and per WP:BROADCAST and numerous discussions and AfDs, consensus is that all radio stations are notable. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete Neutral (see above collapsed discussion) - there are some references attached to the article but most are "directory" style entries provided for all radio stations. I don't think one minor mention in a newspaper could be considered significant coverage. As per WP:BCAST, the station may be presumed to be notable if notability can be established by either a large audience, established broadcast history, or unique programming, but each would still need to be verified by reliable sources. None of the sources provided establish any of these and the article doesn't assert notability against any of these criteria. Notability can also be separately established if the company itself meets WP:CORPDEPTH but I wouldn't suggest any of the sources allow for that either. On balance, I don't think there is enough there to establish notability. Stalwart111 (talk) 00:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The Federal Communications Commission is considered a reliable source, as it is a US Government organization. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:08, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Absolutely, not questioning its reliability as a source. My concern was that the FCC sources don't seem to provide any information about a "large audience, established broadcast history, or unique programming" so as to meet the criteria of WP:BCAST. They provide technical facts and information about the licence and station. Useful, but "routine" as far as WP:N is concerned (in my opinion). So if we want to demonstrate notability against any of those criteria it would need to be done with (other) reliable sources. The FCC sources are good, reliable sources but they don't verify any of the information we would seem to need for the subject to meet the criteria at WP:BCAST. If they did (by providing listener numbers, for example) then this whole thing would be beyond doubt. Do they do so? Or do they ever vet or review listener numbers? If there's another FCC link that covers any aspect of the WP:BCAST criteria then everything else is really a moot point, as far as I'm concerned. Stalwart111 (talk) 02:57, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Here in the US, only commerical stations pay for ratings via Arbitron and these days only certain number of those commerical stations actually pay for ratings, so you don't get an accurate picture. We have a couple stations in my area that have a good many listeners, but they got a 0.0 in the last ratings book because they didn't pay Arbitron. :( So, ratings, at the moment, aren't a good way to determine listenership of a station. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:07, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, well that just makes a discussion about WP:BCAST pointless if the criteria are so out of date and so geo-centric as to be irrelevant or fundamentally flawed. Have changed my comment above to "neutral" and will post a note on this discussion's talk page (and on yours). Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 03:26, 1 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep or Redirect: KTMU does not appear to be a translator station. Given that it's part of the Gospel Station Network, which appears to have a pretty strong presence in Oklahoma and the immediate surrounding area, it clearly passes WP:BCAST in that sense. If KTMU broadcasts its own programming in addition to GSN, then this is a clear pass of WP:BCAST of its own volition. If not, I'd suggest a new article for the Gospel Station Network and redirects for its various call letters. GSN I think should have its own article in any event. Faustus37 (talk) 02:20, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy.  Sandstein  07:18, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim Action Committee (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)

failure to find substantial notable references; mentioned in passing and mostly 6 years ago. Jason from nyc (talk) 21:40, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A fairly old article and topic; a void where reliable sources should be found. With this topic having been so prominent at the time, I'm surprised and, when coupled with its failure to meet notability guidelines, think this should be deleted. dci | TALK 03:01, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. AutomaticStrikeout 22:56, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per several bbc sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:40, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Mohammed cartoons. There were three or four BBC articles around the time of the controversy, when this group was organizing protests, but there's no evidence of a single drop of coverage outside of that. What this amounts to is essentially news that took place around these protests; but WP:NOTNEWS. It may warrant a sentence or two in the article about the controversy, however, since there clearly was significant coverage. --Batard0 (talk) 14:24, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - not enough notability to merit its own article, but worth mentioning in Mohammed cartoons. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:04, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 22:33, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Merge The group itself doesn't appear to have updated their blog in over four years, but the sources listed do give the group at least enough notability to be mentioned in the Mohammed cartoons article. Sidatio (talk) 23:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• merge as above (changed form keep above). Stuartyeates (talk) 04:05, 26 October 2012 (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. MBisanz ^talk 10:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of television stations in New York (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)

With a list of television channels and their corresponding channel numbers, this article primarily breaks WP:NOTDIR. This article provides a service to television viewers which is not an appropriate use of Wikipedia as a platform, and therefore breaks the basic WP:NOT policy of misusing Wikipedia as as something other than an encyclopedia. In broad terms, viewers can find out channels and their channel numbers via on-screen channel guides, not Wikipedia. doktorb _words^deeds 21:54, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Including basic information about a subject which is publicly available in many sources doesn't make the article instant worthy of deletion. --Jayron32 21:57, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is not a repository of random information. WP:LIST ensures we have control on what lists are created and curated here. WP:NOTDIR expressly forbids articles which are channel guides. As the information is publically available through the television screens of subscribers, there is no need for it to be replicated here as an alternative source. doktorb _words^deeds 21:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • If this is worthy of deletion on those grounds, your gonna be busy for the next several hours creating deletion rationales for every article at Category:Lists_of_television_channels_in_the_United_States. Category:Lists of television channels in Canada, heck, most of the articles at Category:Lists of television channels by country has channel numbers in them. You're going to have a late nite tonight nominating each one. --Jayron32 22:01, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I note your concern. doktorb _words^deeds 22:07, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • See how this goes before you start another one. You might save yourself some time. postdlf (talk) 22:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, satisfies WP:LISTPURP as an index of notable subjects sensibly subdivided by U.S. state, as longstanding consensus is that all licensed broadcast television stations merit articles. This is really one of the worst AFDs I've ever seen, stemming from the nominator's overzealous attempt to excise any mention of "channels" from Wikipedia regardless of the context or other informational merit of the subject. The origin of this zeal is a misreading of WP:NOTDIR and a complete misunderstanding of the principles underlying the recent AFDs for lists that presented channel lineups for individual cable providers (in all of which I !voted to delete, but those are quite different). Possibly even more inexplicable is the nominator's apparent belief that any Wikipedia content that incidentally has some utility, or that reproduces information available elsewhere (!), should be deleted. Doktorbuk's reference to "subscribers" above also shows that he doesn't even understand the content that he is nominating, as these are all broadcast television channels. postdlf (talk) 22:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• delete - fails GNG and is a channel guide posing as a station listing in a weak attempt to avoid the scrutiny and application of WP:NOTDIR. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:21, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

changing my !vote to Keep - although it is still completely unsourced, and I still have my suspicions about the intent to masquerade as something else to avoid NOTDIR, I think this article does fall under the various definitions of types of list, as an index of articles or internal wikipedia article navigation guide. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:46, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • The stations are all notable. How does this fail GNG? postdlf (talk) 22:23, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • List of celebrities who begin with C Cher, Candice Bergen, Charlie Parker - all the entries are notable, still fails the GNG. And this particular article fails as having zero third party reliable sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:10, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The difference being, that list is arbitrary and trivial, this is a list of what these are fundamentally: television stations in the State of New York, which is why that's how they are categorized. And indexing articles is one of the fundamental purposes of lists per WP:LISTPURP and WP:CLN. I'd also be shocked if there are not multiple reliable sources discussing each of the television markets as groups within the state of New York given the size of each market and the fact that the NYC affiliates are flagships of the national networks, and the importance of NYC stations to broadcast history as whole, which means that this would also pass WP:LISTN. postdlf (talk) 23:58, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • No country has television stations which are all notable. doktorb _words^deeds 22:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would argue that "Media of country X" is almost always a notable topic since this, in today's age, go hand in hand with politics, and one aspect is what television stations are within that nation. I'm not sure about the state level (hence my suggestion to merge info but certainly not delete, below). --MASEM (t) 23:04, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think you know that either way, Doktorbuk. Regardless, this is a list of articles and only articles, and if there are nonnotable entries (and if there is a consensus not to list nonnotable stations) the solution would be to remove them not to delete the entire list. And regardless part 2, you don't think any stations should be listed in any form regardless of whether they are notable. postdlf (talk) 23:58, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • You said "The stations are all notable". Prove that statement doktorb _words^deeds 03:13, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Inelegantly stated, but a better phrasing may have been "Notability is not a requirement for a complete list of commercial entities of a specific type." Per Wikipedia:LISTCOMPANY "A company or organization may be included in a list of companies or organizations whether or not it meets the Wikipedia notability requirement, unless a given list specifically requires this. If the company or organization does not have an existing article in Wikipedia, a citation to an independent, reliable source should be provided to establish its membership in the list's group." A TV station which has its own article with reference could be included on a "List of TV stations in X" list, while one which didn't have its own article could be included on the list provided a separate independent reliable source was provided which verified its existence and suitability for the list by meeting the stated criteria of the list. --Jayron32 03:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Leaning on Keep but think there's a better way to organize this (as in, for all states, not just New York) to address the notability issue. I'm not sure what it is, but unlike the AFDs on channel lists of specific commercial providers, this list has non-commercial reasoning and would not fall into the same arguments before. --MASEM (t) 22:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dividing by state is the most obvious way to divide any list of X in the United States, and that's reflected in the category system. I'm sure the industry has defined markets for various metropolitan areas, but that should be an alternate method of organization as there's no need to just have one method of organization. If a reader wants to find an article on a particular broadcast station, by state is the most helpful. postdlf (talk) 23:58, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The market definitions that the industry uses are not permitted in Wikipedia for legal reasons (WMF legal has received a cease-and-desist letter, leading to the deletion of all references to these markets). Given that we can't use the industry-standard grouping, doing it by state makes more sense than any other possible organization. 121a0012 (talk) 01:43, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • ^{[citation needed]}. Do you have a link where one of us can read about this prohibition of discussing TV markets? --Jayron32 02:29, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an off-Wikipedia discussion of the problem. On-Wikipedia discussions can be found in various WP:TVS archives, such as here. The prohibition isn't against discussion of TV markets... it's a prohibition against listing the markets in the order the industry ranks them. Which is why it makes sense to group them by state/territory. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:41, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's just we can't use the Nielsen's DMAs for listing stations by market. Here's the main discussion about that from ANI archives. Powergate92Talk 04:01, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, if we can't break down by Neilsen (which is the most logical sub-cat of US TV Stations), keeping per-state is reasonable, assuming that we're talking about the point of broadcasting and not the fact that a viewer in another state may happen to get it (eg all the stations that broadcast from NYC are in the New York list, and not in the New Jersey list despite the fact that NJ residents near the city can pick those up). --MASEM (t) 17:43, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the list uses the location where it's licensed (and therefore where the transmission tower is located--where the station is actually based), and even if it didn't that would be easy enough to fix. postdlf (talk) 17:48, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Listing US/Canadian television stations by media market was prevented by a Neilsen Media takedown notice, so the obvious choice in presenting this data is arranging it by state/territory. Interestingly, my 1952 Hollywood Reporter Production Encyclopedia lists every television station then on the air in the United States, listed by city and state, so I'm not moved by the argument that these entries violate WP:NOT. The idea behind WP:NOTDIR was that editors didn't want readers to come to Wikipedia to check local television program listings... it had nothing to do with not wanting readers to be able to see a carefully-arranged, well-organized list of television stations arranged in a logical, sensible way. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:57, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Postdlf and Firsfron. Powergate92Talk 04:01, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The list is not indiscriminate, has a defined selection criteria, and serves as an internal navigational aid for articles within Wikipedia.--xanchester (t) 20:41, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTDIR. This is pure directory material with no place in an encyclopedia.--Charles (talk) 20:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Jayron32 and Postdlf. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 14:43, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Appears to be a solid, appropriate list for Wikipedia. --NINTENDUDE⁶⁴ 04:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Strong keep actually, for since each station is notable, a list of notable things of a particular type in a particular places is a standard sort of list article. Some lists get challenged because they can never be complete or that not every member has a WP article; here's one that is complete, and every member does have an article, & so it gets challenged on the grounds that such a list is a directory. This is no more a directory article than List of states in the United States. It's a navigation tool, and more useful than a category or navbox, because it can show the network affiliation and the city at the same time. DGG ( talk ) 18:38, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Terrestrial channel lists don't suffer from being ephemeral the way that cable/satellite lineups do. Stations build their identity around their broadcast channel numbers. Gigs (talk) 00:33, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: A strong pass of WP:LISTPURP. Why don't we have one of these for all states? Faustus37 (talk) 02:26, 1 November 2012 (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.  Sandstein  07:16, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kashmiri descent from lost tribes of Israel (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)

Delete as almost unsourced patent nonsense (G1, G10 and possible G3). Quis separabit? 21:19, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The dead-link website wouldn't have been a reliable source even if it were still available, I don't think. An earlier version of the article was sourced, after a fashion, but entirely to primary-source travelogues from the 19th century. While I don't think 19th century sources are necessary a problem, unlike the editor who stubbified the article, the primary source writings of people like George Forster and Horace Wilson are deeply insufficient to defend what is basically a fringe theory, wrapped up in essay-style novel synthesis. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:00, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Striking my delete !vote, but I'm not quite willing to actually advocate "keep". There are apparently enough sources that cover this bit of ethnographic nonsense to warrant an article, although I'm more than a little dubious about the quality of scholarship they express. However, this is a fringe theory in every sense of the phrase, and the material we have here at the moment reads like it has actual currency. We're almost certainly keeping this mess, but I'm not sure whether what we have would be better off being rebooted to correct the point of view and weight issues. Regardless, if this is kept, a rename would necessarily be a first step. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It's an utter WP:HOAX, like the ten lost tribes of Israel sailing to the Americas to found Mormonism--the difference being that Mormonism is much better sourced. Qworty (talk) 23:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are wrong and being hasty. The article has been around since 2007 with lots of input from a variety of editors over the years, so that if it was hoax it would have been deleted a long time ago. The topic is not "Mormonism" (your curve ball+red herring+that has nothing to do with the price of tea in China) which is not the point here, but this topic does have WP:RS even as a theory, see my comments below. IZAK (talk) 11:41, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Merge with Kashmiri people as I do find mention of this theory in multiple books like India's communities and some others, but all have written as a possible theory rather than an actual one. So in my opinion it do not deserve a separate article and should find due mention in "Kashmiri people" article. --SMS ^Talk 06:00, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't support a merge at all. Maybe if there's a lot more detail in the wider context, but if that snippet is all it's got, then I'd be far more willing to assume that "'lost tribe' communities" is being used somewhat metaphorically rather than as support for this fringey fringe theory. Regardless, the standard for inclusion for this, even in another article, needs to be pretty high; it's really far afield. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 06:39, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nonsense. Do not merge.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:57, 26 October 2012 (UTC) I am afraid now this nonsense has to be kept.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:49, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • • Why does it have to be kept "now"?? Quis separabit? 21:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because this fringe nonsense unfortunately made it way to some respectable editions.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:50, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are wrong! It's no "nonsense" see my comments as to why it's a valid topic below. IZAK (talk) 11:41, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and rename Delete and do not merge or redirect. The content is unsourced and controversial to merge. The title is unsubstantiated for a redirect. --Anbu121 (talk me) 11:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • While the article cites only one source, this topic is not "unsourced" and has some pretty good WP:RS, see my comments below. IZAK (talk) 11:41, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing to Keep as per the recently added sources and the rename suggestion. --Anbu121 (talk me) 20:04, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Rename to Theory of Kashmiri descent from Israelites because: ( 1 ) that would be in line with articles such as Groups claiming affiliation with Israelites; Theory of Pashtun descent from Israelites, Japanese-Jewish Common Ancestor Theory, Subbotniks and a number of others to be found in Category:Groups claiming Jewish descent. ( 2 ) This subject could be presented as a truly encyclopedic topic as the Jewish Virtual Library does in its article on this topic Kashmir that cites F. Bernier, Travels in the Moghul Empire, 1656–58, ed. by A. Constable (1891) and T. Parfitt, The Lost Tribes of Israel: The History of a Myth (2002): ""The association of Kashmir with Jews was first alluded to by the 11th-century Muslim scholar Al-Bīrūnī in his "India-Book"...In the time of the Moghul emperor Akbar (1556–1605), the question of the association of Jews with Kashmir and the Jewish descent of the Kashmiris was raised by the Jesuit Monserrate, who regarded the old inhabitants of this region as Jews by race and custom in view of their appearance, physique, style of dress, and manner of conducting trade...The claim to be of Israelite extraction is still widespread among Kashmiris, who point to the similarity of place names which appear to reflect biblical names..." so that if it not a fact, at least it is a theory discussed in WP:RS not to be scoffed at! ( 3 ) The nominator and the "delete" votes seem to be rushing to judgment in violation of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Many stubs like this exist and they are fleshed out. But this is no reason to violate WP:DONOTDEMOLISH because on closer scrutiny this subject-theory does have traction and is discussed in a variety of sources and forums. ( 4 ) This article is not as far-fetched as it may seem at first, and there is some decent WP:RS that are found by a Google search, such a source found through Google Books, citing research: Kashmir and It's People: Studies in the Evolution of Kashmiri Society (By M. K. Kaw); Where are The Ten Lost Tribes of Israel? (geni); Promised land, Cursed people (Kashmir First) and others like this if one searches carefully, caringly and sincerely enough. IZAK (talk) 11:28, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The subject of the article is probably only a theory and it may even be untrue but even if untrue the suggestion contained within it is supported by some sources. Bus stop (talk) 14:00, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - anyone who deleted it because they said it was a hoax, while their opinion is welcome, should realize that just because there isn't a lot of info on the article, it's not a hoax. Do a Google search for this. Here's one book that discusses it, for example. I don't know if it's true or not, but it's certainly not a hoax - it's a theory. The article is in a terrible state now, but can be improved. Deleting it because it's a hoax isn't a valid reason. --Jethro B 16:30, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow Keep and Rename to Theory of Kashmiri descent from Israelites per IZAK, with a redirect from Theory of Kashmiri descent from the Lost Tribes of Israel. Had the nominator bothered to do a quick Google Books search on "Kashmir Lost Tribes of Israel" he would have found plenty of scholarly citations to keep him busy. As it was, I spent an hour or so adding reliable sources and laying out the basics of this widely-cited theory. It also figures prominently in the philosophy of the 19th-century Ahmadiyya Islamic reform movement, which postulated that Jesus survived the crucifixion and traveled to Kashmir to preach to the Lost Tribes of Israel. Yoninah (talk) 19:01, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep well referenced. --Shuki (talk) 20:27, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Certainly enough material. Rename as Izak suggests. BTW, does anyone know if there is any relevant genetic data ? DGG ( talk ) 22:24, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I asked an editor here who specializes in Jewish genetics, and he said he's pretty sure there isn't, and according to the editor, "Considering the haplogropups distribution in Kashmir the pair-wise genetic distances between Kashmiri People and Jewish populations is likely huge, with little possibility of common origin." Doesn't discount this as a theory that can have an article. --Jethro B 00:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep but, if kept, strong support for re-name - the title is rubbish and just lends to suggestions that the whole thing is either WP:OR or a WP:HOAX. I accept that it might not be - there certainly seems to be references to support the suggestion that the theory exists. I'm not convinced it is so widespread a theory (in the scholarly study sense) that the subject deserves an article. The most substantive source supporting the theories in question is from David Hatcher Childress, an "alternative historian" and "historical revisionist" who "claims no academic credentials as a professional archaeologist nor in any other scientific field of study". Whether the other sources are enough to establish notability of the theory itself, any version of the article that doesn't describe it as a fringe theory is, in my opinion, not accurately reflecting the available sources. It's a fringe theory from a fringe theorist who writes about it in his non-scholarly book without referencing any facts, sources or primary material. The fact that others have bought into the theory means it might pass notability tests for inclusion but if it is kept it should be described for what it is. Stalwart111 (talk) 00:52, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stalwart: Why are you calling Childress the "most substantive source"? I just added another reference from the Cambridge Dictionary of Judaism and Jewish Culture. The fact that the theory is cited in a wide variety of publications makes it easily pass WP:GNG and therefore makes it worthy of an article in Wikipedia. Yoninah (talk) 10:27, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because he seems to be the person who, in a modern context, brought a bunch of disparate fringe theories together into a wider narrative and published it. Most of the subsequent references seem to have broadly followed his theories (or parts of them). I don't know for a fact that he was the first to do so but the article, broadly, seems to have been based on his ideas. It doesn't really matter, as I said, the subject probably passes notability criteria as other sources (like the one you cite) have subsequently referenced the ideas, or parts of them, regardless of who published them first. My point was that we need to "call a spade a spade" - it is a fringe theory and it should be discussed in that context. Stalwart111 (talk) 12:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:FRINGE and ISAK. Yes, it's certainly a weird, fringey theory -- but a notable one. Nor its it new; I've read about these theories since I was a kid, over 30 years ago. Some of the Afghanis and Kashmiris have long claims descent from Joseph (son of Jacob) via Ephraim or Manasseh, and then through, the respective two tribes. Formerly respected sources exist that back up the claim is notable. It may be true, or it may be urban legend, but it's a the sort of crackpot theory we have on the Project. Bearian (talk) 19:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per IZAK and Bearian. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:20, 30 October 2012 (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. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:54, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sibichen K Mathew (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)

Completing nomination for IP editor 122.177.56.89, whose rationale was posted on the article's talk page. I have included it verbatim, below. On the merits, I have no opinion. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is hardly any evidence of notability provided for this person. This article does not provide enough good quality references. Most of the edits are done by only one contributor who seems to have a WP:CoI regarding the subject matter. There is only one good quality secondary source provided and that is a very short news item. He seems to be just a mid-level bureaucrat in India and does not merit an encyclopedia article. The book supposedly authored by this person is also not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.177.56.89 (talk) 18:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not notable and not enough sources. TV | talk 22:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per lack of any WP:RS to support notability. There is no reason to believe that IRS agents in India are any more significant than the non-notable bureaucrats who do this "work" in the United States. Qworty (talk) 23:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree with lack of notability concerns - most of the subject's awards are supported by just one external link to a PDF about a college graduation, and the sole external secondary source that can be found in regard to the subject totals three sentences. The book he's written seems to be promoted solely through the subject's blog sites and lacks notability as well. Sidatio (talk) 23:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Lacks significant coverage by sources. There's a brief blurb by The Hindu, but that's not enough to meet the general notability guideline.--xanchester (t) 23:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dont delete IRS agents in INdia have great notability.MR sibichen k mathew IRS is notable around bureaucratic as well as political circles.his book was inaugurated by the governor of Karnataka.he wasinstrumental in unearthing many scams andwasnominated manta times for presidents medal and also got special mention awards from the finance minister.i know there is no personal motives for this but there are many other bureaucrats not notable and even lower than drsibichen having pages on wiki.iknowwiki is not a bureaucrat show off place,but I believe that the page on dr sibichen is encyclopaedic if there. Is any prob withrefrencesi or othereditorsintheindianbioportal can add more references thank you and god bless (Harishrawat11 (talk) 10:21, 26 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

he is of the rank of joint secretary i.e is under the warrant of precedence under the president of india.article is also not badly maintained but this really needs some reliable sources.i think i,ll do it (117.192.155.64 (talk) 11:28, 27 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]

his book is not very notable but that is not the question.maybe i ll get refrences for the book too...... (117.192.155.64 (talk) 11:29, 27 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]

this page also has got satisfactory page views since conception some days even going upto45 views per day.(117.192.155.64 (talk) 11:33, 27 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]

• Delete Looks like a WP:RESUME. No claims of importance in the article and no reliable sources to establish notability. --Anbu121 (talk me) 12:27, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEPAdded significant references from different national and international dailies.will try to make the page more like a wiki page and not like a resume.thanks for the comments.will surely follow them.(Harishrawat11 (talk) 05:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]

• Delete Still can't assess notability. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:52, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• keep he investigated the janardhana reddy case tax case and some other cases as i am not a registered editor i cant be bothered :) but some editor do it and find references,i have seen his name a couple of times in the newspaper.(54.241.120.10 (talk) 16:12, 30 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]

• KEEP added references taking cue from other editors and also established notability him being the joint secretary of the govt of infia under the warrant of precedence under the president of India,as pointed out by a user,also adding 2 more refrences.(Harishrawat11 (talk) 05:50, 31 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]
  • Note Please do not vote twice. I've struck out your second vote as of now. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 06:55, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: How is he a "Joint Secretary to Government of India" and therefore formally in the Indian order of precedence? Give a satisfactory answer to that and you may be onto something. His book is mentioned in the Library of Congress Cite, but that's really only his saving grace. Apart from that I don't see anything here other than him being a mid-level apparatchik. Faustus37 (talk) 06:49, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• keep this guy is a senior IRS officer IRS is a premier government service,and he is also of the rank and pay of joint secretary.there are many jsecretary in india hence he is under the precedence and the article is also of good quality.i have seen many low level guys with wiki pages,but as a guy who knows and rrsesrches on IAS and IRS officers,he is notable enough to have a wiki article.(Mejojoseph22 (talk) 11:10, 1 November 2012 (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 (A7). Alexf^(talk) 17:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I'm not finding much about this guy, so I thought I'd take it to AfD and see what others have to say. AutomaticStrikeout 20:16, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has an IMDb page, but it just lists a small amount of old stunt work. No awards won for it. One book published, but it appears to be a very minor work promoted only by the subject's personal website - the only other site I can find that lists the title is Amazon. Notability's just not there. Sidatio (talk) 23:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete. Jeez. An endless puff WP:AUTO piece written by the non-notable guy himself, without one single shred of WP:RS at all. Incredible. We should speedy it per db-person. Qworty (talk) 23:32, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've just removed all of the unsourced material. There isn't much left. He's breathing and that's about it. Qworty (talk) 23:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy has just been requested. Qworty (talk) 23:51, 25 October 2012 (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 already speedy deleted (non-admin closure). Vulcan's Forge (talk) 22:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Afrikboutik (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)

Blatant advertising. No independent sources. Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:44, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete - Blatant advertising by an non-notable company. I also CSD A7'd it. - MrX 21:59, 25 October 2012 (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. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:57, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Madeline Rogero (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)

Nominated for WP:N concerns - author states subject's notability arises from two facts: Subject is the first female elected to the post of mayor for Knoxville, Tennessee and "significant coverage" by verifiable sources.

The first fact checks out, but all sources noted are exceptionally regional in scope and content and come from just three local news entities. Beyond being the first female elected to the post, it seems the subject has done nothing else notable. As a result, recommend deletion since insufficient sources to demonstrate the subject's notability in the context of having their own Wikipedia page don't appear to exist.

I would also strongly encourage the author of this article to view the process with an open mind, since discussion on the topic before it was brought to AfD was getting a little contentious. It's nothing personal, one way or the other, as far as this editor is concerned. :-) Sidatio (talk) 18:00, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – It's true her notability is primarily regional (she is covered extensively in regional newspapers), but she has been mentioned on the national front. Here are a few examples: Huffington Post, Daily Kos, Think Progress, Instinct Magazine. Also note that this article has already passed through the DYK process: Template:Did you know nominations/Madeline Rogero, and passed. Bms4880 (talk) 18:14, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Sorry for the contentiousness, just disagreed over the 7-day tag. Bms4880 (talk) 18:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The aforementioned author in question. Thanks for participating. :-) My primary concern with the national links you cite is that, on their face, they all appear to fail guidelines for reliable sourcing. HuffPo is pretty much Examiner in the fact that it's a content farm (specifically, a content farm with noted editorial bias toward certain political ideologies), ThinkProgress is unabashedly slanted, Daily Kos has the same issues, and the Instinct link (singular) is a blog repost. I don't know if any of those sources meet Wikipedia standards for reliability given the aforementioned issues. Got anything else?

As far as its DYK status, it should be noted that I'm not arguing whether or not it should have gone through that process, but I suppose it's possible that you reference such because going through the DYK process may be a notability standard now. (I know it wasn't in the recent past, but things change quickly on the internet.) Does passing through DYK automatically confer notability? Sidatio (talk) 18:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

During the DYK process, 8 seasoned editors looked at the article and none had any issue with its notability. DYK may not be a guarantee of notability, but it's interesting that so many established editors read the article, and not one raised the issue of notability. Bms4880 (talk) 18:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not a notability criterion, then, I'd say the location of reliable sourcing from more than a regional standpoint is a far more important consideration. Now, while I can't find anything that fits the definition per WP's guidelines, that doesn't mean the sourcing doesn't exist. Can we find ANYTHING national that more concretely meets the reliable sourcing requirement? Sidatio (talk) 18:50, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "concrete." And I wouldn't dismiss the DYK nomination. Again, of the nine established editors who have looked at this article, you're the only one who has raised questions of notability. Bms4880 (talk) 21:07, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This may be the first time the issue's ever been raised, and since we've established that DYK isn't a notability standard, I feel like we're straying too far away from the notability concern that prompted the initial nomination. It is, after all, what we're attempting to resolve in regard to this particular article, not whether it should have been a DYK subject. So, if you don't mind, I'd very much like to set that to the side as it doesn't resolve notability concerns.

When I ask for sources that are more "concrete" in their reliability, I'm asking for something from an established media outlet. CNN, Reuters, AP, Fox, NBC, ABC, CBS, and so forth. As noted above, the links you cite in an attempt to establish notability outside of the Knoxville region all come from questionable sources per Wikipedia's guidelines on the topic, save for the Instinct link which, in reality, is just a repost from a blog that DEFINITELY doesn't meet the criteria for being called a Wikipedia-worthy source. Unfortunately, I've found nothing of the sort - just a lot of local stuff about a local figure.

I'm sorry, but at present I really don't see where the sourcing is to back up claims of sufficient notability for inclusion in Wikipedia. I don't mean any offense by this. As writing, it's good stuff. But as a Wikipedia article, it really needs more evidence of notability standards being met in my view. Bill Haslam became Governor of Tennessee, Victor Ashe became a US Ambassador. Both deserve their Wikipedia pages as a result. But Madeline Rogero - at this time, anyway - doesn't appear to rise to even those levels in regard to her personal profile and accomplishments. I'm really sorry to have to say that, and if you've got some reliable sourcing to disprove that contention I'm certainly open to considering it.

At present, however, do you REALLY believe, from an independent point of view, that this article meets the requirements as set forth in WP:N? Sidatio (talk) 22:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are there. The national sources are not ideal, but she is being discussed on the national level, to go along with hundreds of regional articles. Perhaps there are better ones in print media, I haven't bothered to check. She is the mayor of a reasonably large city. It's not uncommon for mayors of cities with populations similar to Knoxville's to have their own articles: Joseph Petty (Worcester, Massachusetts), Tommy Battle (Huntsville, Alabama), John Marks (Tallahassee, Florida), George Heartwell (Grand Rapids, Michigan), Angel Taveras (Providence, Rhode Island), and Ron Littlefield (Chattanooga, Tennessee). Are we going to delete those articles as well? Eight other established editors agreed that the Rogero article was notable enough to be mentioned on Wikipedia's main page. If I didn't think she was notable, I would not have spent the time creating the article. And I might ask you the same thing-- of all the tacky, poorly-sourced, questionable articles out there, this is the one that caught your attention? We're not going to agree on this, so if others will offer their opinions, we'll proceed from there. Bms4880 (talk) 00:40, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably for the best. The sources are there for REGIONAL notability, but the sources clearly aren't there for anything beyond that. As to the other pages you cite, I'll be more than happy to give them a look, but we're not discussing them on this page. We're discussing the Madeline Rogero article. If I were you I would strongly consider finding better print sources to add; otherwise, I fear this topic is so non-notable that we're going to have to relist for consensus because it appears you and I are the only ones that care to discuss it - unless one of the article's other two or three main editors comes along. I'm sorry if you take any offense to any of this (and it really seems like you are - this isn't a personal attack against you, I assure you), but so far we've got your average run-of-the-mill politician of no more than regional import - and if we gave every run-of-the-mill politician of no more than regional import a Wikipedia page, we'd need quite a few more servers, wouldn't we? Sidatio (talk) 01:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - A significant element of the argument for deletion is the absence of citations to articles in major national/international-scope publications, but nothing in WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN indicates that notability requires that the significant coverage required for notability must have been in a publication of national or international stature/scope. Rather, the article subject must have been profiled in depth in multiple news feature articles by journalists. Madeline Rogero meets the GNG coverage test based on three articles by three different journalists: this December 2011 in-depth profile in the Knoxville News Sentinel (by Georgiana Vines), the 2003 profiles in Metro Pulse (by Joe Sullivan) that are cited in the article but is not currently online, and this 2012 profile in Metro Pulse (by Jack Neely). Additional articles in these same newspapers and on blog sites like Huffington Post and Daily Kos are additional indicators of notability.

Moreover, old versions of WP:POLITICIAN and various discussions of WP:POLITICIAN that are archived at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)/Archive 2011 have suggested that mayors who lead large cities (i.e., not ceremonial mayors) are generally able to meet the GNG. As the mayor who leads a city of 178,874 people that is the center of a metropolitan region of more than one million people, Madeline Rogero is a local politician of the class who typically receive sufficient coverage to indicate notability. --Orlady (talk) 03:19, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Passes the GNG with flying colours. There is no regional limitation on Reliable Sources. The New York Times is just as "regional" as the Knoxville News Sentinel, they just have a bigger market.  The Steve  09:28, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Nomination fails on both counts. The fact that she's the first female mayor is frankly irrelevant, but some would consider that notable. What is relevant is that the article is well sourced; the fact that the sources are regional does not make them any less reliable or less verifiable. There is no requirement that sources be national in scope. There are plenty of reasons why a source or set of sources may not be appropriate for Wikipedia, this is not one of them. --NINTENDUDE⁶⁴ 02:47, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I suspect the nominator needs to re-read WP:GNG's section on "significant" coverage. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 18:51, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:43, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wigan United A.F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable and doesn't pass WP:GNG. Club that played three seasons in the Lancashire League at the beginning of the 20th Century, never played in FA Cup. Besides, the article is mainly about the history of football in Wigan, not the club itself. Perhaps merge that info to Wigan Athletic F.C. if it's not already there. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 17:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 17:52, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 17:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Lancashire League (football) - no evidence of independent notability. GiantSnowman 18:00, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: With reference to the Club Notability Test user essay WP:NTEST we get this result:
  

Q1. Has the club played in a national cup (listed in the Blue Column)? YES

Q6. Does the completed article generally meet the notability standards set down in WP:GNG? NO

Q7. Has sufficient time been allowed for the preparation of the article? Suggest appropriate time is allowed for the authors to bring this article up to scratch having regard to the following sources:

1. 1901–02 FA Cup Qualifying Rounds
2. 1902–03 FA Cup Qualifying Rounds
3. RSSSF England - Lancashire League
4. RSSSF Matches between English and Scottish Clubs
5. FCHD
6. The Springfield Park Memorial
7. This Northern Soul
8. This Northern Soul
9. This Northern Soul

There is plenty of opportunity for a reasonable article to be prepared on this notable club - no reason why it should not meet WP:GNG standards. League Octopus (League Octopus 18:43, 25 October 2012 (UTC)).[reply]

• Withdraw nomination – League Octopus has conviced me that there may be enough coverage to get the article up to scratch. I will however remove the "History of football in Wigan" section as pure Coatrack. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 19:08, 25 October 2012 (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. MBisanz ^talk 10:41, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of digital terrestrial television channels (UK) (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)

As per WP:NOTTVGUIDE and WP:NOTDIR, with consensus from WP:Articles for deletion/List of AT&T U-verse channels and WP:Articles for deletion/List of DirecTV channels (2nd nomination). Further to this, this particular article uses language ("recent additions are...") which suggest a blog-type article which might be being used to 'host' information rather than provide it. Not appropriate for Wikipedia, not useful, not notable. doktorb _words^deeds 17:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per NOTDIR. no third party coverage indicating in any way that the ephemeral channels a particular station may be broadcast on for a particular period of time are notable or encyclopedic content. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:50, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTDIR. A clear example of an electronic channel guide with current channel assignments. Also, per recent and similar AfDs Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of AT&T U-verse channels and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of DirecTV channels (2nd nomination). -- Wikipedical (talk) 17:58, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Maybe I'm missing something, but this just seems like a list of notable channels by broadcast method to me, and thus an appropriate index that is very different from the cable provider channel lineup lists. The mere fact that it includes channel numbers does not in and of itself make it inappropriate. Am I not understanding the subject? postdlf (talk) 18:05, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• As far as I'm concerned, including channel numbers, and WP:CRYSTALBALL style references at the bottom, mean this article resembles an information factsheet from the various service providers, breaking WP:NOTDIR and numerous other policies along those lines. It's a channel guide article from whichever angle you look at it, and that's been the successful argument against so many of this kind so far. doktorb _words^deeds 18:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• ...and if the channel numbers were removed? Then what would we have? postdlf (talk) 18:13, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• You would have something other than a [List of digital terrestrial television channels], maybe List of digital terrestrial television stations. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "station" = "channel". There is no distinction that I am aware of. A broadcast station is specific to a particular channel because that's the wavelength they are allotted (by the FCC in the U.S., by a similar agency in the UK I'd assume). postdlf (talk) 18:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• not where I come from. A "station" is BBC-America or ABC-Baltimore or FOX-Denver, and while a 'channel' is sometimes coloquially used as a synonym for "station", particularly over the air broadcast where the assignment of the "station" to a particular "channel" is fairly stable over long periods of time, "channel" is the number you set on your TV to get a particular station.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:54, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• But the fact is the channel and broadcast station are fixed together, by a regulatory agency that allots the station a particular radio frequency at which to broadcast, and that frequency corresponds to a particular fixed channel on your TV at home. The channel information is integral to the broadcast station and so when we're talking about what people pick up on their TV antenna (and not just whatever cable or satellite provider they have), it makes sense to identify the station as the channel. Which is why the channel numbers should remain in the list: the channel is why it's BBC One on channel 1, BBC Two on channel 2, Channel Four on channel 4, etc. It's obviously part of the stations' very identity, and as you conceded, it is "fairly stable over long periods of time". Regardless, if renaming this to "List of digital terrestrial television stations (UK)" and removing the channel identification just to satisfy the irrational hatred of the word "channel" would address your issues, yours is a slight complaint that obviously is no basis for deletion. postdlf (talk) 00:21, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Channel is the common name in the UK, not station, e.g. Watch (TV channel), Category:Television channels in the United Kingdom and Wikipedia:WikiProject British TV/Channels. I don't see how verified future events are unverifiable speculation per CRYSTALBALL. - Jasmeet_181 (talk) 05:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTDIR these do not belong in the encyclopedia. The media companies can provide their customers with their ever-changing channel lists without the help of an encyclopedia. In my opinion, there should be a CSD category for these types of ephemeral lists, as they do not further the goal of this project. - MrX 18:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Customers"? The vast majority of these are free-to-air. postdlf (talk) 22:21, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, this is just a list of digital broadcast channels available in the UK, all of which are notable and all of which are integral to the subject of UK television broadcasting just as the many lists of broadcast television channels in the U.S. by state or city. These are those channels that are "receivable with a standard television aerial" and so are not specific to a particular content provider, which makes comparisons to the individual cable provider channel lineup lists inapt. I also would disagree with the claims that this is somehow an ephemeral list; it may be new in many aspects, given that digital television is new, but I doubt that UK broadcasters come and go or flip around the dial on a regular basis. In any event, harping on the inclusion of the channel numbers seems irrelevant, and these "delete" !votes so far seem to be operating from pure momentum from the cable provider channel lineup lists, and a superficial "channel guide" characterization rather than analyzing this very different list on its own merits according to the subject. postdlf (talk) 18:22, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't resemble a provider channel lineup? It even says "EPG number" (electronic program guide) as one of the columns! -- Wikipedical (talk) 18:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is not the channel lineup of a particular television provider, but rather all channels broadcast by everyone. So no, it is not a provider channel lineup. postdlf (talk) 18:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • But it is a channel lineup, and it's also an article which uses one section to inform people of upcoming channel changes. That's what an EPG is for, not Wikipedia. The latter is what a provider's website is for, not Wikipedia. Channels, channel numbers, forthcoming changes to line up - that says WP:NOTDIR to me doktorb _words^deeds 18:58, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Because you're obsessing over one thing it does, and not everything else it is. We do not delete content just because it might be useful in a particular unencyclopedic way; we delete it if it is only useful in a particular unencyclopedic way. Is List of television stations in New York any different in your view? It doesn't use the apparently forbidden word "channel". postdlf (talk) 19:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • That New York list does not contain much useful information, so is acceptable. This nominated article contains channel numbers, in order, which breaks NOTDIR and USEFUL, and contains commercially relevant information on updates and alterations, which is against Wikipedia's general policies on what information is appropriate for an encyclopedia. We should delete content when it has no place here doktorb _words^deeds 19:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Did you really just argue that the usefulness of an article actually makes it more worthy of deletion, or that less useful articles are more appropriate merely because they are less useful? That's so insane of an idea, I'm not sure how to respond to it in a constructive manner. --Jayron32 20:41, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Seems a perfectly reasonable list to me. The launch of new channels generally receives coverage, and the historical existence of channels is encyclopedic. I don't see a problem here. It isn't a provider channel lineup as it is a list of all channels available in the UK. It isn't an EPG because there is no information on programmes in it. --Michig (talk) 19:08, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The key distinction here between this and the deleted articles is that those were channel guides to specific cable and satellite TV providers, this is just a list of available channels. Such lists are common in many contexts, and don't suffer from the same sorts of problems which were the primary motivation for deletion in the above, earlier deleted lists. Merely because some lists of channels don't belong at Wikipedia doesn't mean that every single one that happens to contain a list of TV channels is necessarily undesirable. Since this isn't tied to a specific channel listing for a specific cable company; it is just a navigational list for a bunch of otherwise notable articles, grouped in a logical way. It isn't functionally different than List of railway companies or List of rivers of Pennsylvania. --Jayron32 19:41, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. It contains numbers, in sequence, and commercially relevant details on forthcoming channels and channel changes. It is therefore a channel directory, which breaks WP:NOTDIR doktorb _words^deeds 19:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • As you've already said that several times without building upon it in any deeper way, it really doesn't help to repeat that opinion. All you're doing is just showing how facile this nomination is, equivocating all lists of channels regardless of whether they are company-specific lineup guides or a whole country's licensed, broadcast television industry, and that at best you're criticizing this list for fixable issues (I don't think it even needs serious fixing). Your sentence above, that the list of NY broadcast stations is fine because it "does not contain much useful information", really highlights how poorly considered this nomination is, because the underlying subject of a region's broadcast television stations is the same. Could you please step back for awhile, see what other arguments people raise, and take some time to think about what differences there might be here between this and the cable channel lists? postdlf (talk) 20:30, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've said it numerous times because it's the core reason why I agree that this article should be deleted alongside all the others in this current 'tranche'. This article is essentially two non-suitable things in one - an EPG (not allowed on Wikipedia) and a commercial information/blog (through the month by month channel update/channel changes section, also not allowed on Wikipedia). I can't say it any other way doktorb _words^deeds 20:50, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • So, your saying that because an article is regularly updated and cared for it isn't appropriate at Wikipedia? I am again at a complete loss at how to refute that other than to restate it for its self-evident lunacy. --Jayron32 20:54, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Please don't use WP:UNCIVIL language. I'm saying that this article is against WP:NOTDIR for two main reasons, and this ties in with the consensus being built by the deletions for similar articles. It is not appropriate to have channel listings on Wikipedia. That's the policy we have in NOTDIR and the consensus from previous and current AfDs. It's not appropriate to have channel listings on Wikipedia because the information is already provided in a more suitable place - the subscribers television set for one - and it's not useful because someone looking for a specific channel may be misdirected if there's been a malicious or incorrect edit. Having an onscreen EPG is useful and appropriate, having a Wikipedia EPG is not. And as for "being updated makes it not useful" or however you've skewed my reasoning, I mean that it's not for Wikipedia to list forthcoming changes (some happening in 2013) to line-ups. That's for the television company to detail, not us. doktorb _words^deeds 21:07, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Ok. Three questions: 1) Are all lists of TV channels inappropriate at Wikipedia, yes or no? 2) If some lists of TV channels are appropriate, what would an appropriate list of TV channels look like and finally 3) Could this list be made appropriate by simply editing it (to remove inappropriate material)? If the answer to that last question is yes, then "Deletion is not cleanup" is an appropriate response: Fix the article or allow others to fix it. If we can create a reasonable article containing a list of UK TV stations, then things like moving this to an appropriate title and editing the article to be in compliance with WP:NOTDIR could be used. You haven't made any argument so far which favors deletion over simply fixing. --Jayron32 21:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • Why do you come across as such a fan of these pages? Remember that AfD could be stopped tomorrow if we were all told that articles had to be cleaned up, rather than removed. By and large, channel line-ups are inappropriate for Wikipedia. This article and those currently nominate for deletion are all inappropriate. I think this article is beyond cleaning - it's a lot more complicated than just "select column, delete". It has been created and curated by editors who are using it as an alternative to the on-screen EPG they have through their television sets, and as such is a surrogate directory, something which could be snuck back into use if allowed to remain under a fudged compromise. I'd prefer deletion than clean-up to ensure uniformity across the TV channel categories. doktorb _words^deeds 21:24, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • 1) I'm not a fan of these pages. The above ones were deleted just fine, and I don't object to them being deleted. 2) Lots of articles should be deleted via AFD, just not this one. 3) You have not answered my three questions. Let me reduce it to one: If there are lists of TV channels which are allowed at Wikipedia, what would one of those look like? --Jayron32 21:27, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I did answer your questions. I pointed out that this article would be hard to clean up because of its current set-up and would be better removed than retained. I'd prefer articles which gave only a bare minimum on television in countries (never regions, far too specific). The New York article above is probably as far as I'd go. I can't accept channel numbers, past and forthcoming changes, logos/idents, colour coding which invokes or replicates a commercial providers own on-screen coding, specific reference to the 'blocks' of channels which replicates a commercial providers on-screen coding, and so on. Bare and basic reference to television provision - acceptable, just. Detailed directories which fall foul of numerous policies? No, not at all. doktorb _words^deeds 21:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Why are channel numbers allowed at List of television stations in New York but not in the above article? Why is color coding allowed in other Wikipedia lists (see List of New England Patriots seasons for one), but somehow the existence of color in this one makes it deletion worthy? Why is historical information about defunct TV stations not allowed here, but historical information about say, List of defunct rugby league clubs, allowed? Why does the "future channels" section cause the article to need to be deleted, when it could be removed if it is so bad? I am still perplexed that some intersection of styling choices, all of which are used over and over in other Wikipedia articles, takes this article into "deletion worthy" territory. There are no logos in this article. I am still at a loss to understand where this runs afoul of Wikipedia policy, when every objection you note only runs afoul of policy when it is in an article about a list of TV stations? --Jayron32 21:44, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                      • I didn't realise that those numbers in the New York article were channel numbers. As that is the case, I will start an AfD for that article after writing this reply. Your other points are clouding the waters. Colours are used by digital television providers in the UK to distinguish (for example) sports channels from entertainment, childrens from news. Replicating colours in these articles is simply not acceptable - it's replicating an already existing service on Wikipedia, which is not what this project was designed to do. We have policies against it. If Wikipedia's sports category editors have chosen to use colours, that's up to them, it has nothing to do with this AfD. Rugby clubs have nothing to do with television channels. You know full well what point I'm making - to put "Next month, a new channel is to be launched" on Wikipedia is essentially doing the work of a commercial television provider, potentially breaks WP:OR and/or WP:CRYSTALBALL and might - at the extreme end of things - break WP:COI if someone linked to the industry is providing the information. WP:NOTDIR is the main principle for me on this, and this article breaks that policy, it's that simple doktorb _words^deeds 21:50, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                        • How is a directory different than a list? --Jayron32 21:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                          • This article is a list which functions as a directory. Also, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of television stations in New York has been created following our discussion doktorb _words^deeds 21:56, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                            • Excellent. You have several hundred more to go listed at Category:Lists of television channels by country and relevent subcategories. Have fun! --Jayron32 22:03, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                              • I am already aware of those articles, indeed there has been a concerted effort in related AfDs in linking many of them together. I'll happily make the case against them as I have done tonight here, and elsewhere during the last few weeks. It's worth noting that there is a clear consensus against these articles in the successful AfDs and those currently on-going. If Wikipedia has been used to collate hundreds of these in the past, now is as good a time as any to begin an operation of clean-up and/or removal. doktorb _words^deeds 22:06, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                                • It'll be entertaining. --Jayron32 22:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP - When I proposed/supported the other deletions, it was on the basis that it was a channel listing for a carrier, thus failing NOTDIR specifically as a guide for doing business. I fully support that we would allow lists of what channels are broadcasted within a country that was neutral to the provider as would be this list here. (Though I'd argue some columns like the EPG number or broadcast time are unnecessary). This is a different beast from the other previous AFDs. --MASEM (t) 22:43, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP These channel lists are very useful references for channels available via the platform in question and this list is especially useful as it is for the over-the-air platform in the UK which is now available to everyone in the UK following the completion of digital switchover earlier this week.(Rillington (talk) 01:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment Wikipedia is not a channel guide and viewers can check channel positions on the screen. doktorb _words^deeds 05:12, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I accept that point but this is a reference encyclopedia and reference books tend to include lists. Given this is an online version of a reference book, lists such as these on wikipedia are perfectly valid.(Rillington (talk) 19:17, 26 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]
    • This unanimous "keep" AFD must really make your head hurt, as must the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of television stations in New York AFD you started that is also currently running at a unanimous "keep". postdlf (talk) 18:22, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I will not wade into this discussion, but just have a few questions. Is there anything of this article that is worthy of being on Wikipedia and could either be moved to another page/a new page? Secondly, as mentioned previously, is there an example available of what would be considered suitable for Wikipedia, as this, relating back to my first question, could serve as an example to help satisfy everyone? Finally, is this purely an issue on it being similar to a EPG - for example, would a cast list, including upcoming cast, for a TV programme be unsuitable for Wikipedia? Thanks. Adamiow (talk) 17:38, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Basic lists such as this one of notable broadcast stations within a particular locale (i.e., a standard index of articles of a certain subject, per WP:LISTPURP or WP:CLN) have always been considered acceptable; none have ever previously been deleted at AFD.

    That this list also includes the channel on which these stations broadcast doesn't change that, because it's information that is integral to the station (and even if it wasn't, then we'd just remove it and boom, the list is "fixed"). The nominator's position to the contrary is without precedent or merit. There was a recent string of AFDs involving very different lists—channel lineups for individual cable companies that functioned as directories of their particular services and had no other informational value, hence violative of WP:NOTDIR. There is no sensible reason to treat lists of broadcast stations in the same way just because those stations happen to broadcast on certain channels. So that's where this stands: an AFD started on pure momentum (notice the "me too" voters, some apparently thinking this was still a list relating to some subscriber service for "customers", that stopped as soon as "keep" arguments were presented) riding roughshod over the distinction between the cable channel lineup lists and this index of notable broadcast stations. As long as we have articles on broadcast stations, we are going to list them by their location; "satisfying everyone" here is not going to happen nor should it be our goal because that would impair our coverage of this topic with no benefit to the encyclopedia.

    Re: the cast lists, I think that's irrelevant to the content here, but yes, it is standard for articles on TV series to include lists of their main cast (usually in the form of character lists) and sometimes to WP:SPLIT those off into separate pages when WP:SIZE becomes an issue. postdlf (talk) 18:07, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I just went looking thought this encyclopaedia I edit for just this information. Very useful. Stephenb (Talk) 17:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the above comments. Also the sentence "The most recent channels to launch" should be removed. Powergate92Talk 19:11, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There's an obvious distinction between List of DirecTV channels (which was deleted) and List of digital terrestrial television channels (UK): a list of Direct TV channels will only be useful to readers who subscribe to Direct TV's subscription-based satellite service, and this type of list is ephemeral: it will change based on the whims of the company. Such a list will always require upkeep. List of digital terrestrial television channels (UK), however, contains information that pertains to the entire UK television industry, helpfully listed in an organized, meaningful way. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTDIR. This is an encyclopedia nor a directory of TV channels or anything else.--Charles (talk) 20:46, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...except that we have encyclopedia articles on individual TV channels/stations. postdlf (talk) 20:58, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • And they are magnets for unsourced cruft. That apart they have categories so a list is redundant.--Charles (talk) 21:14, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • ...which is incorrect because the category cannot be annotated in the way the list can or organized in any way other than alphabetically, and in any event irrelevant to deletion per WP:NOTDUP. Re: your "unsourced cruft" statement, see WP:NOTCLEANUP (particularly WP:SUSCEPTIBLE), WP:ATD, and WP:PRESERVE. postdlf (talk) 21:41, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep All previous deletion discussions have defined a clear boundary, that channel lists by company are suddenly tabu, but channel lists by country are encyclopedic. With this nom being first to cross the boundary, several previous deleters have affirmed the boundary's existence by switching to keep (e.g., postdlf, Masem). Accordingly this list is by country not by company, it is not a directory, and WP:NOTDIR does not apply. I have also affirmed that, even though the UK has something of a monopoly TV situation, a comparative geo list of channels by provider (in this case, free-to-air or subscription) is still on the keep side of the boundary as affirmed by the majority in prior discussions; comparing provision methods is also encyclopedic as shown by other articles. The article itself is clearly well-sourced in the "future" section and the common consent for lack of sourcing in other areas of the article is an in-universe problem that can be fixed over time. Encyclopedicity, notability, and the other pillars are all satisfied. 216.152.208.1 (talk) 14:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Strong keep actually, for since each station is notable, a list of notable things of a particular type in a particular places is a standard sort of list article. Some lists get challenged because they can never be complete or that not every member has a WP article; here's one that is complete, and every member does have an article, & so it gets challenged on the grounds that such a list is a directory. This is no more a directory article than List of counties in the United Kingdom. It's a navigation tool, and more useful than a category or navbox, because it can show the affiliation and the format and other characteristics all at the same time. DGG ( talk ) 18:41, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I am not a long term Wikipedia user so I don't know all the protocol but I joined specifically to join the argument that we should keep these channel pages. It is a useful tool to anyone in media/communications. This is not a random list, neither is a corporate shill. Anyone who is subscribing to the services is not relying on Wikipedia as a TV guide. This is hard to find information for people outside of the country or viewing area or not subscribed to the services. I must stress again, Wikipedia is a living document and not a World Book Encyclopedia. This website functions as multiple reference sources (i.e. more than just direct definitions but also how too guide, secondary source guide, a confirmation source) outside the traditional purview. For examples the majority of the celebrity biographical information is generally up to the minute and more reliable than TMZ or Bossip, it seems like IMDB.com even cribs from Wiki. No, I am not an anti-Intellectual celeb-watcher, I am merely pointing out that people rely on Wikipedia for other things than accurate citations for Popes of the European Middle Ages. The channel pages serve a purpose and are not a "waste of space". Lanaii7 (talk) 16:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is a 'useful page' (but perhaps simplify). This falls into the 'category of articles' (many of which are regularly updated) which Wikipedia is more useful than other sources. Where else can the 'list of former channels' be found? Jackiespeel (talk) 19:36, 1 November 2012 (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 User:RHaworth. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let’s save humans’ life with good design (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)

Unremarkable e-book. Promotional article, no indication of notability. Previously speedy-deleted for advertising.Acroterion (talk) 17:13, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete :None of the references refer to the book, merely the e-book's thesis. No indication of notability. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 17:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:NBOOK. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:40, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I can't find sufficient independent reliable sources to establish notability. Gnome de plume (talk) 18:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, wildly non-notable, English title doesn't even make sense. Already speedied as spam once, entry is by the author. Even Amazon doesn't have it. Hairhorn (talk) 19:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Very non-notable. There's no coverage for this book in any RS, the article itself is one long piece of spam, it's almost completely a personal essay, and well... it doesn't help that User:Mohsenjaafarnia has his personal resume up on his user page, complete with an email address and personal website. This is pretty obviously one guy's attempt at self-promotion. I'd recommend that an admin take a look at the guy's user page as well. It's the type of thing that makes me wish there was a speedy category for promotional user pages.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 20:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No significant coverage of the book by secondary sources. The citations listed in the article don't actually mention the book. It's a promotional article on a subject that isn't notable.--xanchester (t) 22:56, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's a pretty blatant plug. The only thing notable about it appears to be its non-notability. If it was speedied before, it probably should be so again. Sidatio (talk) 23:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Commercial plug of a non-notable book. Carrite (talk) 00:18, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow delete per everyone else. A non-notable book which is not the subject of significant coverage, and borderline advertising as well. Let's better not save this article once it's deleted. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:44, 26 October 2012 (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. Obviously as a matter of sheer numbers more users are in favor of keeping the article. However, there are arguments made by both sides that are invalid or weak, so consensus is a bit more murky than evident by the number of bolded words. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:31, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LIST OF CITY NICKNAMES IN INDIA (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 topic, easily covered in the particular article for the city, and also encyclopedic bordering on trivia (not to mention basic issues with this particular incarnation of the page). Shadowjams (talk) 21:51, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Needs improvement not deletion. Should be tagged for copyedit etc and alllow some time to grow and improve.--Shyamsunder (talk) 20:24, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't just need improvement, it's unsourced, and the meager list can easily be covered in its current form in individual articles. It'd be one thing if it was a reasonable attempt at a list, but it's almost the equivalent of creating a blank page and putting in 3 entries like this, then expecting everyone else to "clean it up", which is a tremendous understatement. Shadowjams (talk) 05:32, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep AfD is not for cleanup. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 11:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the nicknames can be used in each article of the city. I fail to see the usefulness of a list of this nature. Tavix |  Talk  16:44, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as completely unreferenced. If references are found for each of the entries, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. I found some limited coverage of this topic as a group in a Google search, but I wouldn't consider any of it reliable. I am, however, reasonably confident that there are Indian sources (perhaps in Hindi) that discuss city nicknames in some detail as a group, thus satisfying WP:LISTN. I am not fully sure, but given that it would be easy to find sources that discuss U.S. city nicknames as a group (see Woman's Day for example), I think the same can probably be assumed about Indian city nicknames. --Batard0 (talk) 14:15, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong| spout _ 17:11, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete What? Not useful. --TV (talk) 18:42, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I expanded the list and added sources to it. I think it is a notable topic similarly to other pages in the category City nicknames by country. Einstein2 (talk) 15:25, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Switching to keep after the sourced references from Einstein. Shadowjams (talk) 00:17, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep With the recently added sources, no reason to delete. It is of course an informative list. --Anbu121 (talk me) 21:11, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes WP:GNG. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:54, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• keep passes WP:GNG, has sources, and would be useful to someone traveling in India.Righteousskills (talk) 02:28, 1 November 2012 (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. Rlendog (talk) 19:40, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Not notable music duo. It has not charted yet and proper reliable coverage is missing. I cathced some coverage from a quick Google search, but nothing to establish notability.

Also, I am proposing deletion of The Dean's List (same topic, less info) — ṞṈ™ 16:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I understand your concerns and will make sure to continue making the necessary improvements on the page to establish their credibility. They should absolutely be able to have a wikipedia page as they've charted on iTunes before and were at one point Number 1 on the hip-hop/r&b charts for their album "Generation X." They've been covered in numerous notable hip hop/rap publications and websites/blogs as "The Dean's List," so that is why there may be some confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reyeaj7 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked the Billboard R&B, Hip Hop and Rap albums chart from 2006 to date and they never reached No.1 with any album. Actually, they don't appear in Billboard's database. — ṞṈ™ 17:38, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not notable. Useless. Not even formatted properly.--TV (talk) 18:43, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I did a search and couldn't find any substantial coverage for this group under either name. If there's coverage then it's fairly well hidden. As far as iTunes sales go, that actually doesn't mean a thing as far as Wikipedia notability goes. The only times charting makes a difference is when it comes to the official national charts such as Billboard. Ranking high on iTunes means that it might be more likely to have sources, but it's no guarantee that they'll be out there in places that Wikipedia considers to be a reliable source. Of the ones that were on the article, many of them weren't reliable at all and were mostly just routine listings on catalog/IMDb-esque websites or were links to primary sources. There's just no notability here.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 19:11, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now - I searched with the current name (The King's Dead) and Google News and Books found nothing significant aside from this hotnewhiphop.com link which contains one sentence, this is probably due to the recent name change. I searched with the former "The Dean's List" and found more results, here (this link claims they toured with rappers Machine Gun Kelly and XV and performed at a Boston University festival), here and here. Google News archives also provided another link that wouldn't show the relevant when clicked, here (fourth result from the top) so it's probably a dead link. It seems the group started while attending college and have only released mix tapes, although they recently released a free album. I found other links here, here, here (concert advertisement), here and here (event listing). It seems that they are certainly growing and becoming more well-known, moving away from their college-based roots, but I think they aren't notable to Wikipedia standards yet. SwisterTwister talk 20:45, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - At this point, there is no significant coverage in reliable sources. I do see concert listings but that only establishes existence. If they gather steam in their career, then an article in the future might be justifiable, but not right now. -- Whpq (talk) 16:02, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice against recreation as a redirect to an appropriate target page. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Colorblind (Leona Lewis song) (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 song does not appear to be notable outside of its inclusion in the EP Hurt: The EP. Most of the information in this article is about that EP, not about this song (including chart positions). Therefore the Leona Lewis version is no more notable than the original Counting Crows version, which was just an album track. –anemoneprojectors– 16:43, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - How is this not notable? The Acoustic version was released as a promotional song from Glassheart to download via Amazon, so it is notable outside of Hurt: The EP. That's what a promotional song is. This is about Leona's version, doesn't matter that it was simply an album track on Counting Crows album. That's like saying "I Will Be should be deleted because it's a cover of Avril Lavigne's version, for which no information is known and never charted. This is ridiculous. AARON• ^TALK 17:00, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "I Will Be" by Leona Lewis was a single and charted separate from its album. "Colorblind" has not charted separate from the EP or album, because promotional singles do not chart. There is very little information about the song itself in the article. It is basically a duplicate of the article Hurt: The EP. –anemoneprojectors– 17:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, so remove the chart section; do you realise that Hurt: The EP charted on the UK Singles Chart don't you? So "Hurt", "Iris" and "Colorblind" all charted as one. Do you also realise that promotional songs are free, and therefore cannot chart? Hence why the Acoustic version, which is on Glassheart, has not charted. AARON• ^TALK 17:10, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes of course I realise that. But we don't make articles for B-sides just because the single it was on charted, or album tracks just because the album charted. Same thing here. Being a promotional single doesn't make it notable. –anemoneprojectors– 17:16, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Of course promotional singles are notable. They raise awareness for the album. Why do you think a promotional single template for the info box exists?? AARON• ^TALK 17:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Because sometimes promotional singles are notable songs. Just not in this case. I do think it's nice when other songs are notable even though they weren't released as (official) singles, but I'm currently looking at some examples on Wikipedia of album tracks and promotional singles with articles, and the ones I'm looking at all charted somewhere in the world. "Colorblind" has not charted, just the EP it appeared on. –anemoneprojectors– 17:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • ... Because the Acoustic version cannot chart! It was free! AARON• ^TALK 17:36, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • Hence it's not notable. –anemoneprojectors– 17:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • It is. Why do you think a promotional template exists? AARON• ^TALK 17:56, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I already answered that question. –anemoneprojectors– 08:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable and there's enough coverage. I suggest maybe two more lines for critical reception though.--TV (talk) 18:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - As it stands more or less all the information is just duplicated from the Hurt: The EP article. The charts section is misleading to me as it was not Colorblind that reached those positions, it would be akin to making an article for an album track then listing all the positions the album charted at. Sanders11 (talk) 18:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator's and Sanders' comments above. At the moment, the article contains information on the EP and not the track and the chart section lists the peak of the EP, not the track. 五代 (talk) 13:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  It talks about why she decided to record this song. AARON• ^TALK 14:03, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  It's about why she recorded it for the EP, which is better mentioned in the EP's article. It's already there, and in fact, there isn't one part of this article that isn't already covered in that one. –anemoneprojectors– 14:41, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  No, the reason why she decided to record Colorblind. AARON• ^TALK 15:04, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, but she recorded it for the EP, and that's talked about in the EP's article. That doesn't make it notable separate from the EP, same as any B-side or album track. –anemoneprojectors– 15:14, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Her reason for recording the song is the same, acoustic or not. AARON• ^TALK 15:16, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry I don't see what point you're trying to make. –anemoneprojectors– 15:25, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Well it's pretty simple. There is a reason why she chose to record the song, it's in EP article. What I'm saying is that the reason she chose to record an acoustic version would be the same reason she recorded it year ago for the EP. AARON• ^TALK 15:27, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes so if the reason is the same, why does it require a separate article? Surely the reason goes in the EP article and the album article. The fact that she recorded two versions doesn't add to the notability of the song. –anemoneprojectors– 15:39, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Because it was released as a promotional single and there is information about it. AARON• ^TALK 15:46, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, there appears to be some confusion about the Hurt: The EP. Lewis promoted the song "Hurt" and it came packaged as an extended play. It was not released in addition to Hurt: The EP. The EP is classfied by technical definition as a single because it is less than 5 tracks long and has a shorter length than 25 minutes. Per the Official Charts Company this means that the EP is treated as a single. Therefore individual songs from that EP would in most cases not qualify and be notable for a separate/individual article. The information about the song is taken from coverage about the EP. The charts included are for the EP as a whole. Individual songs from the EP were not eligable to chart because the entire EP charted as a single body of work on the UK Singles Chart. Thus the chart coverage is relevant as to why the EP should have its own article. The acoustic version was recorded as part of the acoustic recordings for the deluxe edition, it really adds nothing to the original conditions as to whether "Colorblind" is notable for its own article. If anything it was an after thought and nothing to do with the original recording. Finally the 'promotional release' was as a free download for a period of two weeks from Amazon in the UK, it hardly the most notable thing in the world. It is no longer available and so it would be difficult to prove that it actually happened. Plus it doesn't actually make a difference to the notability of the song. I agree with anemone on this one, she recorded two versions, "so what?" — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 16:04, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Incidentally, I didn't know the acoustic version was a free download until it was too late, and found it as a paid download (still a separate release from any EP or album, as was the free download). Therefore it could chart. But that doesn't change anything right now! –anemoneprojectors– 16:11, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is where complexity comes in... although you can buy "Colorblind" as a digital track separate from its parent EP Hurt: The EP here, it would still be ineligible to chart because its parent work Hurt: The EP is classified as a single not an album. Otherwise both "Colorblind" and Hurt: The EP would both chart on the singles chart. Now that "Colorblind" is included on an album here in theory it could chart subsequently, but the charts included are for the EP. Does that make sense? — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 22:10, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The acoustic version I bought for 79p is no longer available, but I forgot that downloading the (non-acoustic) track from the album could make it chart in the singles chart. But it hasn't and probably won't. Surely it could also have charted just from people downloading it off the EP without buying the EP? (Same as a b-side, like when "Forgiveness" charted?) –anemoneprojectors– 22:46, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Lil-Unique had the best explanation as to why. Zac (talk · contribs) 21:59, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and Redirect to Hurt: The EP. There is little reason to go around deleting singles. Just move it to the obvious place. There are no space limitations in either article to prevent a merge, and the EP has only 3 songs. In-depth coverage of each of those 3 songs there is a no-brainer. In fact, I'd suggest redirecting even more search terms to [[Hurt: The EP]... The Steve  09:52, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  There's nothing to merge but I think a redirect would be a good idea. This is a cover version of a Counting Crows song, so to be honest the page should be located at Colorblind (Counting Crows song), which would then redirect to the album it's on, and the link for the Lewis song can redirect to her EP. –anemoneprojectors– 10:09, 28 October 2012 (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. Rlendog (talk) 19:37, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Not notable Indian healer and founder of Biogetica. — ṞṈ™ 16:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I can't find sufficient independent reliable sources to establish notability per WP:BIO. There is a likely conflict of interest at work here as well - much of the article creator's editing involves promoting Biogetica. Gnome de plume (talk) 18:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I see very little as far as potential sources for this individual, for Biogetica, or for any of his other companies. There are lots of social media and blog-style references, a few press releases, and an FDA enforcement warning letter... but that doesn't an article make. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:08, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Google News found an independent.academia.edu profile but it reads like a personal biography and advertisement, making no mention of becoming a professional doctor and only identifies him as an independent researcher, Google News archives provided irrelevant results. SwisterTwister talk 22:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Academia.edu isn't an independent (or reliable) source. Its bios appear user-submitted. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 23:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not surprising, the website appears to be a social network. SwisterTwister talk 00:19, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Couldn't find independent reliable sources --Anbu121 (talk me) 20:50, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) — ΛΧΣ21™ 16:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fuzhou Airlines (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)

An article about an aerial line still being founded, with no established notability. — ṞṈ™ 16:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I really think were alternatives to an AfD 20 min after creation. A simple note to me and I could have dumped it in one of my sandboxes and db-u1 it. Even a prod with an explanation would save the community the hassle. Sorry folks. I won't contest this. It was probably too early to create. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:18, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh Anna. I didn't knew this was your article. I will then withdraw this nomination and let you expand the article. I just got to it by random. Sorry. — ṞṈ™ 16:34, 25 October 2012 (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. Rlendog (talk) 19:35, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

United Shipping & Trading Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable global group of oild companies from Denmark. I did a quick scan on Google and found deveral mentions on Businessweek and other websites, but I'm afraid this fails WP:CORPDEPTH. — ṞṈ™ 16:08, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:04, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see here the company has just been ranked as the third largest Danish company based on turn-over so I think it is notable. Ramblersen (talk) 16:38, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that, but I considered that it was not enough... I tried to find more sources but wast able. Any help would be very appreciated. — ṞṈ™ 16:41, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can see another one here. I agree that there aren't a lot of sources, though, but imo that is also a reason for covering it (and actually why I made the stub) as long as there is notability and the sources are there. But I have really very little interest in this subject so I am not going to spend a lot of time trying to expand the article. You are very welcome to delete the article if you find the subject unnotable.Ramblersen (talk) 16:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Although size per se is not generally regarded as relevant for notability in WP, the fact that even the largest compnaies in Europe often struggle to pass AfD suggests that we are over bureaucratic in our application of the criteria. A company which has the third highest turnover in the Denmark, equivalent to almost 12 billion USD in 2011, and has been around since 1873 ought to have an entry. If there are comparable US companies which are not considered notable I should be very surprised, and that suggests a cultural bias in WP which we ought to correct. --AJHingston (talk) 22:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Topic appears to pass WP:GNG per several sources in Danish: [10], [11], [12], [13]. There's also these mentions: [14], [15], [16]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree with AJHingston. A company that's over a hundred years old and making 12 billion dollars in a single year, is obviously notable. And Northamerica1000 has found some sources as well. Dream Focus 20:58, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Huge global shipping entity. Tons of Danish sources. Some in the article, some here, use google.dk to search for even more, if needed. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:58, 29 October 2012 (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. "unsourced" is not the same as "unsourceable" Firsfron of Ronchester 21:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article has only two citations - both reference the subject's own website - thus it fails to demonstrate notability. Roger (talk) 14:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I put 4 proposed sources on the talk page for the article, including a search which turns up quite a few mentions on the local newspaper (tcpalm.com). I'll try to put those as references into the article for this weekend if no one else does. I agree in its current form it may not meet notability, but I'll have to see how it is by the end of the period. So count me as currently undecided.Naraht (talk) 14:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, "needs more or better references" is not a valid reason for deletion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:06, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep there are plenty of sources that just need to be added to the article. Unsourced doesn't mean unsourcable StarM 00:40, 1 November 2012 (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. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Computer World Uttar Pradesh (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)

So small an educational institution as to fail WP:CORP . In the alternative, may not actually exist. Shirt58 (talk) 13:25, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A google search did not provide any useful information, I was unable to find a evidence for this to pass WP:GNG. Also the wording sounds promotional and qualifies as an advertisement without reliable sources. Righteousskills (talk) 23:37, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 13:33, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

Delete No evidence to make this pass WP:GNG. Buggie111 (talk) 17:41, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:CORP due to lack of sources. LibStar (talk) 14:20, 27 October 2012 (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. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:08, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TrakaxPC (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 promotional article on a non-notable product. I cannot find any significant coverage in third-party sources - other than promotional material and one minor piece of coverage from a source of questionable reliability - which would establish notability. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 12:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No indication of notability. Getting reviewed is not notable. --HighKing (talk) 13:19, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No significant coverage by reliable secondary sources. The citation used in the article is of a blog, and one that isn't reliable. A search for news articles doesn't bring much, outside of PR releases.--xanchester (t) 13:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Hi. This looks like a clear-cut case of lack of notability. I found no editorial reviews in CNET Download.com, Softpedia or Softonic and my other search attempts came up bare. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 15:01, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• There are 342,000 results for trakAxPC in Google. I included the CNET / Softonic / Softpedia links so you could see the download hits to show a notable amount of users for this software. (signed by User:Catrionabarry)
  • I've a concern that you may not understand what is required for notability. The new links you have included in the article are not arms length independent reviews from reputable publishers. The CNET link uses information provided by the software publisher. As does the snapfiles link. The softonic link has a review from a softonic editor but it's hardly arms length since the software publisher makes it available for downloading at that site, and there are *no* bad reviews at softonic (hmmmm...) --HighKing (talk) 22:56, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 26 October 2012 (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.