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 WTF. No article ever existed at this title. The nomination text looks like a proposal to create an article, rather than a proposal to delete one. This AfD wasn't created with a header, signed with a signature, or transcluded onto a daily logpage, so it has just sat completely untouched for the last seven years.
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 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.
Keep Does look to be a notable topic, with sufficient coverage to establish this. The article may need cleaning up but when you having an article about a slogan/doctrine you have to name it as that slogan and then write about it in a NPOV way. Davewild (talk) 18:13, 20 April 2015 (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.
RedirecttoPen_name#Female_authors where the topic is already adequately covered (I was actually in the process of doing just that but hit an edit conflict with the nominator). Alternatively, delete if this is deemed to be an implausible redirect title. --Finngalltalk20:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- The topic is already covered at Pen_name#Female_authors. This article is unsourced and fails WP:ESSAY, so none of this content can be merged there, and I do not believe it is a particularly plausible redirect title because of its length. ReykYO!08:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or possibly redirecttoPen_name#Female authors. The title is of questionable usefulness as a redirect, but I'm not dead set against it. The subject does seem to be covered rather well at the previously mentioned article, and we don't need an essay that duplicates it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:48, 23 April 2015 (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.
At this moment I don't think this person meets Wikipedia:Notability (music). He wrote one song in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints hymns book. While that may sound big, that makes him one of 341 plus composers and not very many of them have their own pages. Only the composers who wrote multiple songs AND served in LDS Church leadership positions seem to have their own pages. Therefore, I don't think that mean he meets any of the 6 requirements for notability for composers, songwriters, librettists or lyricists.
I will grant that, if the page were expanded, Craven may meets Notability (music). However, the way this page is now I just don't see it. --- ARTEST4ECHO(Talk)19:18, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:ARTEST4ECHO, I just want to point out, in case you are unaware, that editors are not supposed to bring articles here until and unless they have searched for notability among souces not on the page, since this is a place to discuss whether the topic is notable, not whether the page is adequate.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:13, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are less than 341 composers of LDS hymns. Many of the other people who we have articles on are only notable for being hymnwriters. The claim about also being LDS Church leaders is based on both a less than full perusal of the contents and a misunderstanding of the nature of the LDS Church. Many of them have listed callings, but these callings, such as being a bishop, are local leadership positions that would not alone come anywhere near establishing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:07, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot find sources that discuss Craven, or his hymn. The hymn appears to be popular, at least, there are web pages with instructions for choir directors, and you can print out the sheet music, but I cannot find that anything substantive has been written about the hymn, or about Craven.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:02, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, did not received coverage outside LSD sources, and apparently he did not even received substantial coverage IN LSD sources, blatantly failing GNG or suitable SNGs. Cavarrone13:11, 24 April 2015 (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 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.
NN poet. While there are a lot of sources in the article, they're all either casual event listings, YouTube videos and the like. A Google search for either "Sir Mark Bruback" or "Sir Mark the Poet" (a nom de plume) turns up just a single photograph in a single book, amidst a torrent of LinkedIn, Myspace, last.fm, Reddit and various blog posts. Lacking are any third-party, independent, reliable sources. (The "Sir" is an affectation, apparently, based on him belonging to a "Knights Templar" outfit.) Fails the GNG. Article created by an SPA whose other main Wikipedia activity is creating a page for Bruback's self-published book, which is likewise up for deletion. Nha TrangAllons!18:33, 17 April 2015 (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.
RedirecttoParallel SCSI#Ultra-3. This is a bit overly specific and detailed for Wikipedia, which is not supposed to be a how-to guide or manual. At the redirection target, I added a citation and slightly expanded it, so this doesn't really need to be merged. I think the coverage would be more applicable to the Ultra-3 standard itself, which could conceivably be split off from Parallel SCSI and expanded if someone really wanted. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:03, 23 April 2015 (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.
In the last AfD, a couple of users asserted that there was enough sourcing to provide notability. Neither provided convincing evidence, but there was very minimal participation in the discussion, which was eventually closed as 'no consensus'. I remain unpersuaded of the subject's notability and would prefer to see this given a more thorough review. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 14:58, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Never played in higher in a league higher than AA or managed above B level. Doesn't meet the notability for baseball players. My search didn't find significant coverage to claim he meets WP:GNG. I found a column in a local paper about him, but that's all. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 15:56, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perhaps this page shouldn't have been created without better sourcing, but it isn't surprising that there's a lack of online sources for a guy whose baseball career occurred in the 1930s and 1940s. On the plus side, if this page is deleted, there's already a better page at Baseball Reference Bullpen, so the internet won't be losing any info. with a deletion. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 18:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If looking through older newspapers for info isn't satisfying GNG (I looked last time and this time, found nothing non-routing), then it's clear he's non-notable. Wizardman20:40, 19 April 2015 (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.
Original research - this appears to be just an author's opinion, or perhaps a school essay. There are no references, nothing to indicate notability or where the generalized statements came from. Referring to itself as "this study" reinforces the impression of original research. Yet there is no encyclopedic content: the article basically says that "the cost of crime is important but nobody knows what it is".
The article was PRODed and the original author removed that tag without comment. Gronk Oz (talk) 14:44, 17 April 2015 (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.
I figured someone would nominate them, Mellowed Fillmore, but I'm not surprised it didn't happen. Several of the people who are most active in the baseball AfDs insisted that bullpen catchers are coaches and that they shouldn't need to pass GNG. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 19:43, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, only one editor, who explicitly disclaimed knowledge of baseball, suggested this. As I recall, the initiator of the discussion thread also supported this, but did not make any comments in the thread beyond starting it; everyone else said that the general notability guideline should be used. isaacl (talk) 17:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to prior AfDs, not the discussion you linked. In AfD after AfD, a small group of people insisted bullpen catchers were coaches and that they didn't need to meet GNG. That's what led to the above discussion. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 20:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reasons as above, and per the first AfD. Mellowed if you want to go through the bullpen category and AfD the non-notable ones go for it; after the attacks I got the first go-around I have no intention of going through that again. Wizardman20:37, 19 April 2015 (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.
WP is not a dictionary. This article is merely a dictionary definition of the phrase "structural evil" and is not encyclopaedic. Refs are all further definitions of the phrase. GregJackPBoomer!14:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Our policy WP:DICDEF explains that "One perennial source of confusion is that a stub encyclopedia article looks very much like a stub dictionary entry, and stubs are often poorly written." I have expanded the topic a little to demonstrate the difference. See also our editing policy. Andrew D. (talk) 18:11, 17 April 2015 (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.
When I saw the name Muhammad Ali I was thinking that's a hoax! But then it was a different one. With that said it seems like it could be. Delete. Wgolf (talk) 16:07, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While I could not find any other reliable Wikipedia references other than WP forks and mirrors, I would consider a strong delete and no other person on WP exists with this name and I even got a Google hit to a link to a Facebook account!
As this article was orphaned and unsourced for almost ten years, this could be the oldest hoax that ever existed on Wikipedia; older than even Jar'Edo Wens by only a couple of days and possibly a pun on Muhammad Ali.The Snowager-is awake22:24, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. My instinct is that it may very well be a hoax. A few red flags: This article is the only recorded edit of its creator; the article lacks any references; no other editor has made any substantial additions to the article in nearly a decade, which is almost unknown when dealing with any authentic historical figure; the claims in the article seem extremely vague and give few specific details of the subject's actions and significance. Ideally, an editor with some expert knowledge of Egyptian history could help to confirm these suspicions. Calamondin12 (talk) 01:06, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, there were no other reliable references other than WP forks and mirrors and so that is why I endorse the deletion. There were no JSTOR and Scholar references and lastly, possibly a pun on famous boxer Muhammad Ali. The Snowager-is awake01:20, 18 April 2015 (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 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.
This individual seems to have no significance except for being the victim of a crime. He does not seem to meet the notability criteria in WP:N/CAorWP:BLP1E. While there was a previous blogger killed recently under similar circumstances (Avijit Roy), he was notable for more than simply his murder. Mamyles (talk) 20:56, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the incident is being covered internationally, in English, German, Italian and Spanish press. If the argument is that the article should have a different title, such as the assassination of Washiqur Rahman Babu, I have no problem, (See Second Blogger Hacked to Death in Bangladesh This Year) but the suspects have been caught and proudly announced he was killed for his anti-Islamic writing. μηδείς (talk) 22:24, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I added content to Avijit's article and supported it on ITN, but this guy seems to have no books, and no criticism of the government. Political repression of cyber-dissidents is interesting but this guy seems unremarkable. CPJ and RSF1RSF2 have coverage, but he seems to have no independent publications of his own. Might be merged if low coverage. -- Aronzak (talk) 04:34, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note, only two articles on Google News in the last week, suggesting a burst of coverage, and a lack of enduring coverage. Conviction/Sentencing could create more coverage, but it still seems like it isn't enduring, and much coverage is tangential, dealing with the larger issue of press freedom rather than his life. -- Aronzak (talk) 13:43, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or consider an article about the attacks against progressives in Bangladesh which would include other related problems lke Avijit Roy. By itself, despite the wide coverage, this is a failure of WP:BLP1E and considering the event standalone, fails WP:NEVENT. But there is clearly a larger problem with stuff like this happening in that country, and so it fully makes sense to have an article about it that would also include this person's murder. --MASEM (t) 23:57, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Masem: Hello I think you might want to take a look at this thread again now after almost two weeks. There has been more events and coverage, in particular:
I believe this addresses the WP:NEVENT concern and I have also addressed the WP:BLP1E concern in my lengthy argument below. Please reply with what you think. – Nahiyan8 (talk | contribs) 04:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All these point away from any notability about the person and instead about the general attitude/situation of people using physical violence to quell free speech. This still fails WP:BLP1E. --MASEM (t) 04:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is not the general feeling that is given when reading these articles, this seems more personalised. Physical violence against free speech isn't at all commonplace here in Bangladesh for that to be a general violence against that, this has been shown to be the work of a smaller group. Almost all of the articles there are specific to Oyasiqur or Avijit as well and not written in a general sense of oppression. But anyway, please consider my quotes about WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E below in this discussion. – Nahiyan8 (talk | contribs) 06:21, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and let the article improve. I agree that we might end up merging this article at some point, but I don't think there is anything served by a headlong rush to do that. Let the coverage collect a bit and we can revisit in a few weeks. --Krelnik (talk) 13:18, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and let the article improve (changed vote below to Merge to Avijit Roy). It is particularly notable that the transliteration of this man's name varies considerably, and that he used pseudonyms in his writings, so it has not been immediately clear how great his contribution was in life. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:21, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Sminthopsis84:@Gurumoorthy Poochandhai: The quality or length of the article is not being questioned here. What is being discussed is whether or not this individual is notable enough for his own article. Improvements to the article would not change the subject's notability. Mamyles (talk) 21:24, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mamyles: I disagree - improving the article could radically change the subjects notability. What if he (under another pseudonym) had written some particularly notable/controversial posts, and this has not come out in the news yet? I really think it doesn't hurt to wait a little while and revisit. --Krelnik (talk) 02:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Krelnik: With all due respect, that argument just doesn't work. It's like saying writing an article about you or me could be notable because it's possible that one of us will become famous. Notability is now - we don't write articles about people who may become notable in the future. Mamyles (talk) 13:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Er, what? Because the article hasn't been fleshed out, it may appear that he wasn't notable, when in fact he might have been. He may turn out to be notable when we find out more about what he did in his life. Writing is hard, and wikipedians are being discouraged on so many fronts. Please don't delete drafts before they have a chance to become good articles. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep- lets keep a light on this subject 17:44, 31 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valentinejoesmith (talk • contribs) 12:44, March 31, 2015
@Valentinejoesmith: A light should be kept on the subject of violence against bloggers in Bangladesh, certainly. Feel free to create an article about that, as User:Ctg4Rahat suggested. However, as this individual is not notable for any reason besides his manner of death, an article dedicated to him is not warranted. Mamyles (talk) 21:24, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Valentinejoesmith: WP:BLP1E means notability can't come from a single event, there needs to be ongoing coverage. WP:COATRACK means that articles about one thing can't mostly be about another thing. -- Aronzak (talk) 21:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: we have international press attention (plenty of reliable sources) focusing on this incident. It may be that this article would be better titled "Murder of Washiqur Rahman Babu" or something of that nature, but I think that it deserves a place here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:20, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP1E means notability can't come from a single event, there needs to be ongoing coverage. WP:COATRACK means that articles about one thing can't mostly be about another thing. -- Aronzak (talk) 21:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I posit, this new article be named either Attacks on atheists in BangladeshorAtheism in Bangladesh rather than Attacks on bloggers in Bangladesh, because: this attacks are targeted ONLY towards atheists and not towards totality of blogger communities. Furthermore, thought they are often tagged as blogger, their activities in Facebook and other media and real life are also subject. They are being attacked not because they blog, rather because they are atheists.
Hifazat-e-Islam members targeted bloggers who they say are atheists... The bloggers, who deny they are atheists, are seeking capital punishment for those found guilty of war crimes during the nation's 1971 independence war against Pakistan
- CPJ doesn't care whether a blogger killed for their writing is an atheist, a freethinker, a secularist or a Muslim who just criticised Islamists. Imran H Sarker's comment that he was not killed because of widespread exposure means this article should be merged, the other articles should just be summarised.-- Aronzak (talk) 10:51, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't dictated by CPJ. And the subject in question here is not bloggers, but are atheists. Babu wasn't targeted even for being a blogger, but for hist Facebook comments. Attacks are made to these victims regardless of their medium of expression and due to their belief (or non-belief). However, whether the new article be named ...bloggers...or...atheists... is a question to be discussed in AfC. ~ nafSadhdidsay19:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Mr. Washiqur's murder has been covered worldwide, yes. But however this event may or may not be separate from the attack on Mr. Avijit. Many news sources has drawn the parallel to these murders, sure. But altogether since it also has unique details and elements of its own, such as the scenes of the murder, the circumstances surrounding the murder (such as the the very very important difference that the perpetrators were caught this time), and other factors such as uncertainties in the upcoming future such as the criminal lawsuit that will follow since the murderers have been arrested. I don't think the lawsuit for this murder will be appropriate for any other article, therefore I oppose the deletion. Now I will quote the policies.
For notability as an event:
WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE: Notable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle. The coverage I believe is likely to be continuous in the national news, similar to how Mr. Avijit's was. Mr. Avijit's family were in the news many times after Mr. Avijit's death. Mrs. Avijit even published an article in The Daily Star. There's nothing to say it won't happen again in this case.
WP:DIVERSE: Significant national or international coverage is usually expected for an event to be notable. Wide-ranging reporting tends to show significance, but sources that simply mirror or tend to follow other sources, or are under common control with other sources, are usually discounted. The murder has been reported worldwide but most of the reports were published in around 30th March when they didn't have that many details on hand.
WP:DEPTH: An event must receive significant or in-depth coverage to be notable.}} As above, they have had recurring coverage from our national sources. Please see my references below for evidence of this.
For notability as a person:
WP:VICTIM: A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person. [...] Where there are no appropriate existing articles, the criminal or victim in question should be the subject of a Wikipedia article only if one of the following applies:
The victim or person wrongly convicted, consistent with WP:BLP1E had a large role within a well-documented historic event. The historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role.
In this instance, Mr. Washiqur's murder large amount of sources that covered the event has centered around Mr. Washiqur's role as a blogger and this is consistent with this policy. I am also of the understanding that Mr. Washiqur's murder is notable and unique in itself as I have written in my first paragraph. I have also quoted the relevant policies for the historical significance of this event above.
WP:BLP1E: The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources. It is important for editors to understand two clear differentiations of the People notable for only one event guideline (WP:BIO1E) when compared with this policy (WP:BLP1E): WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of living people and to biographies of low-profile individuals. As Mr.WP:BIO1E applies but not the other policy WP:BLP1E, please see below.
WP:BIO1E: When an individual is significant for his or her role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered. The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified. The significance of the entire event revolves around Mr. Washiqur's role, as in WP:VICTIM. So Mr. Washiqur's role and arguments for an article as a biography should be given weight due to these arguments. An article about the event cannot contain many details about his life so I am of the understanding that a biography is better fitting.
Blogger Oyasiqur buried at Lakshmipur village. New Age BD. 31 March 2015. ("Tipu Sultan, the father, has been in extreme pain and frequently being fainted since he received the death news of his son, our correspondent reported. His wife died 20 years ago.")
@Nahiyan8: Thanks for the well laid out comments. English language articles in the last 24 hours bring news coverage closer to being meaningful. The Opinion piece is good. I'm still concerned about BLP1E - this guy didn't seem to publish much independently before his death - no books unlike Avijit Roy, and his writing hasn't been involved in the Shahbag protests, unlike Haider. Imran H Sarker states he did not have widespread exposure, and Tahmima Anam wrote in a New York Timesopinion piece
Mr. Rahman, the latest victim, was the quietest of the three. He was not particularly educated. He had not, as Mr. Roy had, published books and articles. He mostly wrote posts on Facebook. Why was he targeted? Why, among all the other bloggers, was his name the one that came up?
A lot of coverage conflates him with Avijit Roy and Ahmed Rajib Haider (as Tahmima Anam's article does) - still leading to the issue of coatrack. I'd say try and improve this article over the next 24 hours.-- Aronzak (talk) 11:07, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Nahiyan8: thanks for that, just looked on Google news and there are new sources linking the killers of this guy to the killers of Avijit ([7][8][9]). I was concerned about WP:SYNTH (combining two sources that don't reference each other to make a claim that isn't made). If the sources themselves explicitly link the killing of the two individuals, and suggest that they are both done by related groups, then COATRACK isn't an issue. I added lines to Avijit Roy about how
International organisations, including Human Rights Watch,[32] Amnesty International,[33] Reporters without Borders[34] and the Committee to Protect Journalists[35] condemned the imprisonment of bloggers and the climate of fear for journalists
back in 2013. For a decent article, there need to be good sources linking his death to the surrounding issue of press freedom. CPJ
The official harassment of journalists in Bangladesh comes as other journalists, especially bloggers, have come under threat from other quarters. In the past five weeks, two bloggers were hacked to death in public. In late February, assailants killed American blogger Avijit Roy and injured his wife as they were leaving a book fair, while visiting the country. On Monday, three assailants attacked and killed blogger Washiqur Rahman Babu.
Ideally, there should be a few high quality English language sources that clearly link his death not just to Avijit Roy, but the wider issue of press freedom in Bangladesh. -- Aronzak (talk) 06:13, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article will have to be moved if the decision of the discussion is keep. Mr. Washiqur's name is officially "Md. Oyasiqur Rahman" according to his national ID card in this reference. The honorific Md. (Mohammad) could be dropped, and his name does not have "Babu" in it. (It is similar to a "Guru" honorific.) This is very important to do before any more people mistakens his name. I have added his name's pronunciation according to the NKL standards from his true Bangla name, ওয়াশিকুর রহমান, but I'm reluctant to move the page while this discussion is undergoing. I will request the closer of the discussion to move the page to "Oyasiqur Rahman" if the decision is keep.– Nahiyan8 (talk | contribs) 08:25, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Another comment: I have a small but very important comment that many people here are only considering the information written in the article. I am absolutely sure that there are atleast 50 news articles from atleast 5 large english news sources in the nation about the murder alone. His murder has been covered in atleast ten other countries as well. If this does not count as basic notability then I don't know what does. The article isn't expanded well enough. The criminal lawsuit or proceedings or so forth is not covered at all! There is no mention of Masum or any other people important in this murder. I please suggest that people atleast search in google for something like Oyasiqur murder site:thedailystar.net (a very good Bangladeshi english newspaper). This also only covers the english news sources and not the other 20 Bangla national sources... I am absolutely sure his murder was in the headlines too in most of the newspapers when this happened. Please remember this before only considering the small amount of information present in the article, there's a very problematic shortage of Bangladeshi editors. I think people are discouraged to expand the article as well since it's under the deletion discussion. – Nahiyan8 (talk | contribs) 11:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Nafsadh: I don't think so really. The earliest references that I can find are to his murder. Although I don't believe there was any coverage on Mr. Roy before either. I don't have any strong arguments for a biography but I feel very opposed to a merge as well. Avijit's and Oyasiqur's murders were mostly the same in characteristics but this is all complicated by the connection of the two murders ([10]) so it's not apparently clear where to host the discussion of the organisers of the attack as more details appear. Each murder also had their own circumstances, protests, news, opinions and so on... – Nahiyan8 (talk | contribs) 04:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So, how does he pass WP:ANYBIO? He should be redirected to Attacks on ... in Bangladesh; per WP:ONEEVENT. You can interpret all these guidelines in whichever way you want; but these norms mean what the community think that means. So please, stop making the same argument against each votes posted here. This AfD is turning out to be your top edited page and also 8% of your total contribution to Wikipedia. Pardon me if I sound rude, but I think you need to learn a little about notability and coverage norms. nafSadhdidsay04:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a memorial, plus being killed was his one event that made him known. My sincere condolences to his friends and family, but being killed is not enough for an encyclopedic entry. I would, however, recommend an article called "The murder of Washiqur Rahman Babu" as long as that doesn't still violate the aforementioned guidelines.Longevitydude (talk) 19:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Memorials. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements.[...]
@Longevitydude: Of course but the memorial policy states that above. After his murder, he's become known throughout the country so he is very notable! Okay this was a single event, but single events are often notable! I've made some arguments above which you might like to see about his notability as a person/event. I'm still arguing for a biography so I request that you see my last argument please. – Nahiyan8 (talk | contribs) 15:12, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Longevitydude: We can rename this to "The murder of Washiqur Rahman Babu" but the most important reasons to rename the article, rather than delete it and recreate it with the new name to delete an article already written, only to re-write it trying to obtain the same content about the murder is not necessary . Doing so would violate WP:CC-BY-SA which requires maintaining the list of contributors to the article. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: His murder is the single event which got media coverage, I see. Before this, no one apparently knew him. Based on the murder of a person, Wikipedia should not have an article. So many events occur everyday in each country which get media coverage for one/two day. Are we going to create separate articles for all those, on daily basis? Why not, if we can create article on Washiqur? -AsceticRosé00:54, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@AsceticRose: I see your concerns and views but I have to tell you that another article Avijit Roy was made after Mr. Roy was murdered. Roy's murder was without-question notable but yet he is not very notable at all. What I see had happened was that he had some slightly-notable things from the past which was 1. An award by this blogging competition and some ("well-received", but "well-received" post-mortem?) books. In itself the article would never have passed an AfD with Keep. But after the murder and the following significant western and national coverage I believe those small tidbits such as him as a writer passed as rationale for notability etc. The article was expanded and even put in the news in the main page! But what parallels are present here? Oyasiqur was murdered, he too received a lot of national and western coverage (atleast 30 different international sources including the UN, Reporters without Borders, etc.), he's become just as well-known as Mr. Roy as a "household name" in Bangladesh. But what this article has become hung up on is that Mr. Oyasiqur didn't have any of the immediate rationale such as books or so on as before. But should that count as un-notability? I don't believe so. Their notability comes from the press coverage subsequent to their deaths. I don't suppose that Mr. Oyasiqur's murder is really notable to foreigners except for Indians since you don't talk to your friends or colleagues about this murdered blogger; but if you're an educated Bangladeshi, then you'll have surely heard about this murder and you will want to find out about who this Oyasiqur person is and what happened. So where do you get this information? Wikipedia! – Nahiyan8 (talk | contribs) 02:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Nahiyan8: My arguments above are not intended for this article only, but for all such cheap articles, be it Avijit Roy or any other. The present problem is that media coverage is a good physical yardstick to judge notability, but we are misusing media coverage as an ethical yardstick to justify a non-notable issue. Wikipedia is not a repository of all things that exist or happen. Just tell me what is actually notable about Washiqur except his murder? That he was a blogger? Is there any shortage of blogger on earth? That he was described as a "progressive thinker"? There are millions of progressive thinkers. How silly are the lines He paid tribute to the slain atheist in his Facebook profile page with the hashtag #iamavijit. It seems we really have nothing notable to say about Washiqur; so stuffing the page with items like this.
I'm pretty sure that such articles are created by certain users either to increase their page-creation count or to promote ideology they hold. The second one is very apparent here.
My concern is not with this page only, but all non-notable pages like this. They are not notable. We are making them notable, although this is not the Wikipedia guideline. I will not hesitate to say that we are making non-notable issues notable in a forceful manner. -AsceticRosé00:37, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article is not a memorial for a victim of an ordinary crime but a description of an event which undermines freedom of expression in Bangladesh. For that reason it is a political crime and notable. Otto (talk) 06:05, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then make an article about the crime itself which can very well include the victim, but the victim in and of himself is not notable enough for his own stand-alone article. Longevitydude (talk) 23:21, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@BabbaQ: "per WP:GNG" is not a coherent argument in and of itself. WP:GNG, under the "Presumed" point, takes into account the numerous exceptions in WP:NOT. This would seem to fall under precedent exceptions to the GNG explained in WP:BLP1E and WP:ONEEVENT. Could you elaborate why this individual is particularly notable for more than just this single event? Mamyles (talk) 15:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As the Committee to Protect Journalists has written, the killings of bloggers is regarded by NGOs as the direct result of government restrictions on speech (imprisonment of bloggers) creating a culture of impunity towards attacks on bloggers and the media.
The vast majority of opinion pieces written about this guy's death were also about Avijit Roy. Many of the opinion pieces written about this man's death also mentioned Avijit Roy, and WP:COATRACK means that articles about one thing shouldn't primarily be about another thing. When the CPJ writes about Washiqur Rahman they mention Avijit Roy, Asif Mohiuddin, and Ahmed Rajib Haider. The only News article from the last week on Google News is AlJazeera coverage of Washiqur Rahman along with Avijit Roy. This doesn't meet WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE - maintaining a separate article rather than just a subsection of Attacks on atheists in Bangladesh is not justified given the lack of endurance of news coverage.
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.
Delete, "closed alpha testing of Dragon Ball Online Global was announced to begin at 20th April 2015" is anyway too soon, and a new section in Dragonball Online could cover the topic for, say, the next 20 months. –Be..anyone (talk) 23:16, 17 April 2015 (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 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. The discussion is ever so slightly leaning toward article retention, but the notions for merging are also prominent. It's clear that the article won't be deleted per this discussion. Further discussion regarding a potential merge can continue on an article talk page if desired. North America100018:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I prodded it with the following rationale: "he coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement." It was deprodded by User:DGG with the following summary: "given the great notability of the founder, this is at least mergeable". I don't think there's much to merge, however, through I guess it's a possibility; however I don't think this should remain as a stand alone article. Let's discuss this here. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here07:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is the firm founded by Cochrane when he returned to private practice in 1983, before any of his famous cases. All of his subsequent work was done as principal in the firm, he retired in 2002,and died in 2005. Some of the notable cases in the article on the firm occurred after that, and might be considered sufficiently important to show the continuing notability of the firm. DGG ( talk ) 21:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/RedirecttoJohnnie Cochran; I don't think it quite makes it as a standalone article. It's a large national law firm; you'd think its size and star power alone might get it to WP:CORP. But most of the coverage is passing mentions, for example when a notable defendant hires them or when one of their attorneys wins a significant case, rather than anything about the firm itself. I found and added to the article one reference which is significantly about the firm. There were other possible sources, describing various lawsuits against the firm by clients or former employees, but those stories did not get picked up by the mainstream press and I don't regard them as significant enough to add to the article or to count toward notability. --MelanieN (talk) 00:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because the firm is still reasonably notable, but as an editorial decision I can see merger as a reasonable post-AfD decision, since one or two paragraphs about the post-Cochran firm might be enough. After Cochran's death, a National Law Journal article entitled "Cochran's firm survives him" described the firm as "the first national plaintiffs' firm" [14], and its activities have remained in the news (though certainly not at the same level as when Cochran was alive). MelanieN has already noted the public controversy about the firm's direction as reported in the LA Times.[15] As another example, co-founder Jock Smith's activities for the firm, and his unexpected death, were covered in multiple media [16][17][18][19][20][21]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon06:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/No Merge The length of time the article has been up not withstanding, I believe the importance of the firm within the African American community, particularly within Los Angeles, should be considered. The firm name and legacy is symbolic of the law being the only vehicle to achieve meaningful change in our society, especially to those that feel marginalized by the system. An independent article for the firm is warranted by it's founding through Johnnie Cochran and his name recognition, but also for what it continues to represent to those readers who do look upon the firm as more than just a business founded by a celebrity. Much in the way a reader would be curious about the history of a Haliburton independent of Dick Cheney, or a Microsoft independent of Bill Gates, readers for whom civil and human rights violations are a real part of everyday life will equally find the history of the Cochran Firm noteworthy. The article also serves the spirit of wikipedia in allowing a forum for forming the best factual historical compendium of a culturally controversial entity. Please consider leaving in place.--CAcochran (talk) 17:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC) — Cacochran (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep/Close Searches on the firm name bring up numerous secondary sources in locations throughout the United States, reporting both case work and opinions on the firm, even within the last few years. These are just a sample: [1][2][3][4][5][6] I believe that does meet the requirement for an organization to warrant an article. Given that the discussion has been relisted twice, I would like to move that we close this discussion and leave the article in place. Thanks --Cacochran (talk) 19:45, 24 April 2015 (UTC) — Cacochran (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Merge/Redirect as suggested by MelanieN. The subject of this AfD has been mentioned in a multitude of reliable sources including in books and in the news. That being said, never has the subject of this AfD been the primary subject of any of those sources. Members of the subject have received significant coverage, and clients of the subject have received significant coverage, but never the organization/law firm itself. Therefore, not receiving significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, and only receiving mention, the subject does fall within the scope of the notable late Johnnie Cochran. What is presently verified can be merged into that article, and if sufficient reliable sources with significant coverage can be found in the future to recreate this article are found, or if that article meets WP:SIZERULE, then it is possible that this article can be recreated, but not before then.
The sources above added on 24 April are primarily mentioning the subject of this AfD in passing and are not the primary subject of those sources. Crain's New York Business could be argued to be significant coverage, but is more about the real estate move, and only gives a brief paragraph that is specifically about the subject of this AfD. This source from the South Texas Record, is primarily about the lawsuit; although the subject of this AfD is the plaintiff, the lawsuit is the primary subject of the source.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:47, 25 April 2015 (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.
Keep It's very hard to judge law firms. This seems to be a very important law firm in their country. The Museum is not unconnected with their work-- it seems to be the direct offshoot of their IP specialization. DGG ( talk ) 22:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Being (or "seeming to be") an important firm in a given country is not a valid criteria for notability, not unless this is shown by sources. Here, for example, I decided not to press with AfD following a removal of my prod, as my second investigation did turn out a ref showing that another law firm is indeed seen as important in another country. But in this case, I am not seeing such sources. Self-published sources, passing mentions, listing in few regional rankings - neither of this is sufficient to satisfy notability. And museum has a separate article, to which - at best - perhaps this article could be merged, if you think the connection is strong. But notability is not inherited: museum founders, sponsors and such are not notable unless there's independent coverage of them. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here01:13, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon06:54, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the sources currently on the page are not the best, a quick search turns up plenty of other mentions in the media and elsewhere that help make the company notable. Article content and sources should be expanded and improved rather than deleting the entry entirely. Some sections need to be rewritten to reflect a more neutral point of view. Commonlaw99 (talk) 18:24, 17 April 2015 (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 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.
I was going to lecture you about making "Delete per WP:FOO" !votes but after reading the article I realised there's not much to add. This topic seems to be fundamentally original research and even the title is an opinion, and the articles in Category:Feminism and education cover it fairly well, I think. I'm not sure a speedy criterion for this would be good though because things like this take a while to read. Anyway, yes, delete, and point the creator to Wikipedia:Alternative outlets if that hasn't already been done, because it's well written and somewhat interesting. ekips39❦talk00:48, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Delete per WP:X" are sometimes bad because they can be a petitio principii - by saying "guideline X ought to apply", they implicitly assume that guideline X has been violated without saying how. But here, any reasonable person will agree this is an essay... Tigraan (talk) 09:09, 21 April 2015 (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.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar⨹12:50, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Incredibly non-notable CN block of shorts even the CN'crufters didn't see fit to create an article about, and the 'I kinda think they removed it 'cause of the swears and drugs' writing is painful and likely untrue (the test-pattern ratings did it in). Nate•(chatter)20:23, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This is programming which was broadcast on Cartoon Network. And there are articles of shows related to this. And incidentally, we don't delete stubs due to needing writing improvement or because more references are needed. None above appear to dispute it was broadcast on a major cable network. Sofixit comes immediately to mind... - jc3717:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The writing makes it sound like it was a hoax though. I don't remember this airing at all, and the only sources in the article are commissions for the program's imaging, not actual press releases from the network talking about the show and what it's about. When the body of the article admits that that " (while) shorts have since reappeared via YouTube, a significant portion of them remain elusive", we're not exactly in the position of SOFIXIT, but on a search for sources that might not be there for a show that aired less than four weeks. I've known blocks on Nickelodeon that have lasted longer, in comparison. Finally, we are not required to be the official repository for everything with a title ever aired on Cartoon Network; that is not the purpose of the encyclopedia. Nate•(chatter)18:41, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Did you actually do that "...a search for sources that might not be there for a show that aired less than four weeks"? It doesn't sound like it in your comments. I tried google and was at the very least able to establish that it wasn't a hoax (unless they were rather thorough and fooled quite a few more than I...). Again, due diligence trumps stating "delete" in a vaccuum. - jc3719:48, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've found one possible reliable source (Cartoon Brew) verifying that this show existed and aired on Cartoon Network in 2005, so it's definitely not a hoax, but beyond that... nothing. The creators don't have WP articles and we don't really have anything about this show besides the fact that the show was made, was aired, and an episode list. Therefore, since there doesn't seem to be anything else we can say about it... delete.
Delete - Multiple searches found nothing. There's not going to be much on the show since it only lasted under a month and at times, kids shows also don't get that much attention but obviously the former is the main explanation. SwisterTwistertalk02:26, 26 April 2015 (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. Adequate participation has occurred herein, but no consensus has emerged for a particular outcome regarding this article. The potential for a merge can be further discussed on an article talk page if desired. North America100018:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to say redirect to Winston Churchill upon seeing the name but don't see any instance of him. I would say redirect but not sure to who. Wgolf (talk) 20:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - lots and lots of sources in the British Newspaper Archive, some of them WP:ROUTINE but I think when you put them altogether you can spin an article out of it. I've added two prominent ones. Even then, WP:BIO says close family members of notable people should generally be redirected, but we can't do that here because multiple members of her family are notable, so keeping is the only option left. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)17:59, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen this debate before, where you have small mentions in many many sources that make it possible (albeit difficult) to show notability - usually ends in a "no consensus" close. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)07:36, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've seen it before. It does not conform to either logic or common sense, or even to the GNG, which says significant coverage. Put simply, I would say that to be notable you have to have done something notable. Otherwise we're using the GNG like a particularly unintelligent robot, and should devise a program to scrape the internet and enter everyone who has been mentioned twice. (or three times if you want to be particularly selective). DGG ( talk ) 16:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would certainly agree with that sentiment if it was the only rationale put forward to keeping the article. It's an argument I've used myself for deleting an article (eg: here) and as I said above, some - actually quite a lot - of the coverage is WP:ROUTINE. But for me the salient point is an ambiguous redirect. I'd be happy compromising with a redirect if somebody can suggest precisely where. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)09:04, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain As originator of this article it would be inappropriate for me to vote on this discussion, but I would like to add some comments. As the originator of about 15 Wikipedia articles on people I am familiar with different interpretations of notability by different editors. Having studied the Wikipedia criteria on notability it is my understanding that it is not the person’s notability per se, but the provision of independent verifiable references to support the article, and I believe I have provided this. For someone who was active more than a hundred years ago, it can be difficult to find many references on the Internet as many documents may not yet be digitised and in the public domain. When I first researched her I knew that she was less notable than her brother and sister, for whom I have created articles, but my research uncovered enough material to start an article on her. Wikipedia works on the principle that nobody knows everything but everybody knows something and it is my hope that other Wikipedians with additional information will contribute to this article in the future. Ritchie333 has already added the sentence: She performed classical concerts around the UK during the early 20th century[5] and was described as "possessed of a beautiful soprano voice".[6] and provided two further references to her singing career, for which I am most grateful. Ritchie333 states that there are lots and lots of sources in the British Newspaper Archive, so I hope more contributions will follow. DGG has mentioned redirecting to, say Winston Churchill, but her husband was not related. For more information on this see article on her son, Peter Churchill. MrArmstrong2 (talk) 08:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As for her performances, all I'm seeing is that her alma mater says she performed at Court Theatre, but was she a star, or was her role similar to what she did for Electra (according to another reference), just being part of the chorus? Other sources just mention her in passing. Nothing substantial. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a bombardment of low quality sources or routine coverage does not add up to the sort of good quality coverage we need to write a comprehensive biography. Lankiveil(speak to me)02:05, 18 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]
I would suggest merging with her husband's article. The only thing the sources outside of Cambridge, which while reliable doesn't really establish notability, seem to say is that she was a singer. Yes, there are many of them but they don't add up to much when none of them have any details beyond she sung at X on date Y. She has other notable relatives, of course, but her husband's page seems to be the most natural target for a merge. Pinging @Oo7565: who accepted this at AfC for input. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:48, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
MergetoWilliam Algernon Churchill. But if there is no consensus for a merge then keep but not delete. As the spouse of a notable person about whom there is sourced material available a merge is permitted by Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Invalid criteria but I see no policy basis to delete; WP:BEFORE is also relevant. Though I am not convinced that Myers is separately notable, she is of sufficient significance that encyclopaedic coverage of an important family would be damaged by outright deletion. Just Chilling (talk) 19:23, 20 April 2015 (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.
Article written like advertisement. Does not tell reader why company is notable. References, with exception to Boston Business Journal, are self-referencing links or of minor reference. Cahk (talk) 05:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The piece in Boston Business Journal is the most substantial of the offered references, but is local coverage and indicates nothing more than a small firm going about its business. Multiple searches are finding nothing better that could indicate the firm meets WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 07:03, 18 April 2015 (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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Aygun Kazimova. No argument advanced for the notability of this song, but neither was an argument advanced against our usual preference (per WP:AFD and precedent) of a redirect to the album and/or artist in such cases. j⚛e deckertalk21:54, 25 April 2015 (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.
Was thinking of putting this as a BLP prod but it technically has refs, not sure how notable this guy is as well as how much of this is accurate even. Wgolf (talk) 21:47, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
IMO his career is pretty relevant, we created his wikipedia article because there was a huge need for it in foreign countries. Please send me some information about the criteria we have to reach in order to maintain this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Forizs22 (talk • contribs) 23:47, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The awards could provide evidenceofnotability if they are verifiably notable in their own right. I can see verification of the 2006 Rudolf Lábán Prize, though as one of 7 recipients that year ([22]). The Knight's Cross also that year could perhaps be notable? There is no equivalent article on this person on the Hungarian Wikipedia, though there is a trace of a previous deletion, on what appears to have been WP:COPYVIO grounds: [23]. AllyD (talk) 09:36, 3 April 2015 (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.
I looked for sources and did not find enough sufficient to pass WP:GNG. Possible it could've been CSDed as promotional given it's currently only a list of features and basic description with no secondary sources... — Rhododendritestalk \\ 22:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, some sources in the direction of "if you have JACK you might also like ARAS" exist, but as I don't know the topic I didn't bother to add it, because I couldn't explain why a Softpedia review about JACK helps with the notabilty for ARAS. Hopefully some Linux folks with a clue can help out here with reasons to delete or keep this article. It's not spammy, free software, no speedy required. –Be..anyone (talk) 04:19, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no RS turned up at search. Does not fit CSD because it certainly is not unambiguously promotional. Being free software is irrelevant: a political tract or an NGO's press release would be promotional even if it did not ask for money. Tigraan (talk) 10:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Provide them, if you are so sure of that. I am confident I would dig up many hits with "<X> is a moron" replacing X with a famous politician of your choosing, but I doubt any of them is to a reliable source. Tigraan (talk) 09:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perfectly valid reason for my update, and ignoring bots and nomination nobody else contributed to the article so far. I'll bite and click on your six links added below:
Audio news (twice): Six years old español blog entries, not obviously notable (bring Hydrogen audio or Doom9, and I flip to keep per WP:HEY)
Analfatecnicos: In essence a non-notable link collection mentioning ARAS among many others
Radialistas: Ditto, if that's a notable site for the language I wouldn't know it, and non-English sources on enwiki wouldn't be optimal. BTW, do they say that they don't like ARAS as of 2011?
medioscomunitarios: another link collection. Did you include English pages in your search? I miss the Softpedia JACK review mentioning ARAS.
jackaudio.org: Their home page does not mention ARAS, and this site is already used as the so far one and only 3rd party reference.
Manual (PDF): Might be okay, add language=es to the {{cite web}} if you want to reference it in the article.
I consider [36] a reliable source since it is the official website, and of course [37] is also a sharing platform. The rest of the links may be militant? websites but also independent media covering this topic. Blueinsect (talk) 14:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do not want to bite a newcomer and I understand you might have trouble with English as a second language, but did you even read the guidelines you quoted? Just to clarify, the sources need to be at the same time reliable, independant, and deep-coverage. Please at least read WP:42, it is a short summary; I am not spending anymore time reading your sources if you do not even check them before. Tigraan (talk) 09:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't want to spent your time in reading the sources I have provided you shoudn't be able to decide on maintain or delete this article. I don't know your notion of reliability and independence, but if you feel good by deleting a free software article, do it. Blueinsect (talk) 14:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Blueinsect: The guidelines are not Tigraan's own. "Notability" is kind of a technical term and shouldn't be confused with "importance" or "significance". It's a quasi-objective measure of those sorts of things based on extensive consensus-building discussions over the last 14 years. An official site or a site written by the company or an involved person, is a reliable source for some basic information, but cannot be considered here because it's are not "independent of the subject". Anybody can write anything about themselves -- what Wikipedia wants to cover is what publications like newspapers, academic journals, magazines, and others that are "reliable" in the journalistic sense. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 15:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't talking about Tigraan's own guidelines but about her/his notion of reliability and independence. I provided some sources that may be reliable and independent:
1. Do these sources involve a significant coverage?
"We need significant coverage. This helps show that a topic meets the notability guidelines. We need sources that discuss the topic directly and in detail. Not: passing mentions, directory listings, or any old thing that happens to have the topic's name in it."
The first quasi-objective question is: how much is significant? how many sources that discuss the topic directly and in detail should we consider?
2. Are these sources reliable?
"We need sources that are reliable. Usually this means that the publisher has a reputation for fact checking. Choose: books, newspapers, or other periodicals. Not: discussion boards, fansites, Facebook, YouTube, or most blogs."
The second quasi-objective question is: which publishers have a reputation for fact checking? which books, newspapers, periodicals or minority of blogs should we choose?
3. Are these sources independent?
"We need sources that are independent. Not: articles written by the topic, paid for by the topic, their website, or press releases. We want readers to be able to verify that Wikipedia articles are not just made up. So, please add footnotes to your article."
And the third quasi-objective question is: how do you warrant that sources are independent or not?
I tell you the same thing, so if you feel good by deleting a free software article, do it.
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.
Delete I figured I would be able to find quite a few sources on the topic, found one quickly and the realized it was pretty slim pickin's after that, so I would have to agree with nom, simply not enough sources to establish notability. -War wizard90 (talk) 04:24, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I thought this team did play for one season, but can't find any evidence they actually did. Guess that makes them one of many ABA teams that disappear without playing. LionMans Account (talk) 22:32, 22 April 2015 (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 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 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.
Last AfD closed because it attracted only one brief comment, although this was a delete. I couldn't establish that this man meets WP:BIOorWP:GNG. It has been tagged for notability for 7 years; hopefully we can now resolve it. Pinging those who have commented on its notability before: Smerus participated in 1st AfD;The Writer 2.0 nominated it for speedy deletion; Bbb23 removed speedy tag. Boleyn (talk) 06:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon00:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article states that Bryant has won numerous awards but mentions by name only the "Thomas Jefferson Award". There are several different awards of that name, but I assume this refers to the award given by the U.S. Department of Defense for outstanding work by public affairs personnel. (Examples: [46][47]) I didn't find enough information about this award to suggest it's sufficiently prestigious to convey notability under WP:ANYBIO, nor could I find specific information about what he did to win the prize. I did learn, however, that the Defense Information School created a "Hall of Fame" in 2013, honoring "accomplished alumni". Bryant is one of the first seven selections to this Hall of Fame, and the school commandant referred to him and two others as "part of a group who established themselves 'among the best journalists, authors and visual information communicators in our nation.'". [48] This is enough to make me wish we could find more specific information about his work; unfortunately, I couldn't. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:43, 9 April 2015 (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.
Comment. Hello, Arxiloxos. Except none are about a rivalry that exists. I can't use the press as sources to improve the article because all of the facts of the matter seem to be something either from the past or between the lines. Are you sure that rivalry isn't just something to keep sports writers working? -SusanLesch (talk) 12:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While not as fierce as two or three years ago since they no longer play in the same conference, this is arguably the premier rivalry in the sport. OK with a rename, but the article should certainly be kept. Billcasey905 (talk) 22:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is one of only a handful of women's college basketball series that has received significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources -- as a rivalry -- sufficient to satisfy WP:NRIVALRY and WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:19, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - After this AfD is closed, the article should be renamed in keeping with our standard sports rivalry naming practices per Ejgreen's comment above. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SusanLesch: I tweaked the lead to make it more consistent with what we typically do for the football rivalry articles. There is no required formula for writing the lead section, but I always try to incorporate the linked names of both the teams and the universities to properly identify the parties for non-sports fans. The bolded text should reflect the article title -- I've included the bolded title to which I think it should be moved when this AfD is closed. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You will need a source to be able to say this "is arguably the fiercest rivalry in women's college basketball". The citation doesn't link to an article. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:17, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SusanLesch: I agree, Susan: opinion statements should always be sourced. I was trying to preserve as much of the substance of the original as possible; if the opinion statement cannot be sourced, whack it. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:26, 22 April 2015 (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.
Delete. The close relationship between all the articles created by the same author suggests an attempt at publicity. The only thing saving this article from an A7 speedy deletion is the assertion of receiving positive reviews despite being independent; unfortunately the sources cited are user-generated or local. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although at least one source appears independent and non-self promotional, the subject seems to be more aspiring to notability rather than one who has any kind of noteworthy achievement. So far, at least. 216.40.85.194 (talk) 14:31, 17 April 2015 (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 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.
This song shows no indication of notability. Use in a TV show and included on a compilation to promote up-and-coming artists over 2 years ago doesn't mean the song itself has achieved any sort of notability. The song has not received any signficant coverage in reliable sources. Half of this article is about Now 44StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me01:01, 2 April 2015 (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.
Keep for now. In the limited time I have had in the last few days, I have not found any great WP quality sources for this song, Delilah. But in the interviews and reviews I have read about this song and the album it's on, this song is mentioned most frequently. I added one source. I also added {{notability}} seeking others to wok on this article. Further research should find better sources. There are also several print sources, not on the Internet, that can be checked. They will take a while to track down. — Lentower (talk) 00:28, 14 April 2015 (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.
This was a tough one-was not sure to prod, xfd or what with it. I just went with afd to see what people think. It might be notable someday but since it has yet to happen (actually says first day is March 31st which is today) Could be a one time only event also. Wgolf (talk) 20:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seems to be a run-of-the-mill conference, based on the sources here. Of the 5 sources, #1 and #4 seem pretty good. One is the site of the conference itself. The other two are mentions. It appears that the conference has taken place in the past, but this article is about the 2015 conference. I agree that at some time in the future it may reach notability. LaMona (talk) 21:03, 4 April 2015 (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.
Works for a viral marketing company. One of their videos got some media coverage [50] Insufficient notability for this individual though. maclean (talk) 19:52, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Different Zhang, I peeked at the deleted content, author vs. businessperson, 23-year difference in birth year etc.. Hope this helps. --j⚛e deckertalk00:35, 8 April 2015 (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 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.
Delete - I can find no non-trivial coverage, and none of the references are form reliable sources. Were he notable the page would require a rewrite to make it wiki-worthy, and would have to lose the bulk of its contented (unsupported). Not an issue, however, as he clearly does not fulfil notability guidelines. WalkingOnTheB (talk) 12:47, 9 April 2015 (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.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar⨹12:52, 9 April 2015 (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.
Comment sometimes if two terms are very close, especially in pronunciation, it is worthwhile to combine the pages, as a significant number of searches in this case may be unknowingly looking for the particular article with or without the extra "s". --Bejnar (talk) 17:07, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support that (although I'm not sure it's ideal) if someone were willing to do the work and also redirect the imposible article to the combined impossible article so as to not re-introduce all of the red links I was attempting to remove in the first place. I'm not sure how to structure the article correctly to include a different (foreign) spelling of a similar word though, so someone else would probably need to do the work for it to read correctly. Suppafly (talk) 18:38, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirecttoImpossible. Only two entries need to be transferred. The redlinked ones won't be getting articles, and one is already there under its English translation. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirecttoImpossible, agree with Clarityfiend that we only need to merge the bluelinks not red. I also agree that because imposible is a common misspelling of impossible, it would be better to have them all under one disambiguation. If this page is kept though, we would, at least, need to add a not to be confused with hatnote. -War wizard90 (talk) 03:47, 17 April 2015 (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 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 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.
Comment Based on the information presented this person might have been featured in literature about James Watney and Leonard Sharland. There are some records of her work but I am not sure if these are just archival logs or anything which reported what she did. Also for some reason the article creator posted a picture of a house named Burnside and said that it was hers, but the article says nothing about that house and the picture has no copyright information. I know that notability is not inherited per WP:INHERIT but considering this is a biography from the 1800s, and that there are some records about this person, and that she seems to appear in the narratives of two notable people and the story of some old building, all together I might take that coverage as meeting WP:GNG. Josdeng, won't you please say something here about the records you found? Can you post copyright information on the picture you uploaded of that house, and say if you took the picture yourself or who owns the copyright? Where are you getting this information? Blue Rasberry (talk)20:11, 7 April 2015 (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.
fails WP:MOVIE, each film (Hidden Colors 1, 2, and 3) have been covered by maybe one reliable source each (that might even be a stretch), none have each been covered by a multitude of reliable sources and fails other evidence of notability too Jukitzk (talk) 18:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Tapered: "more than 2 reliable sources" on maybe the film series overall, not per each individual film. films are to be treated as individuals, that's why Star Wars Episode 1 has a different article from Star Wars Episode II, and most of those sources do not look reliable, but from self-created sources (IMDB,Tumblr, youtube, facebook, own site of the movie, Forums, blogspot, etc) I see maybe two reliable sources for 3 films, so i do not see how each individual film passes WP:FILMorWP:N when each film lacks significant coverage Jukitzk (talk) 18:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Jukitzk: Your deletion nomination is not about 3 separate film articles, but is about the one article covering the entire and related series. As they were released years apart, sources may address the series parts one-by-one and need not address the entire series. Are you suggesting we split this into three articles and take them on one-by-one? Did you decide to improperly judge on current state and ignore the numerous sources available with diligent WP:BEFORE?Schmidt, Michael Q.21:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
i treated each film as an individual article, as the article was poorly written when i discovered it and i looked to find multitude of reliable sources for each film and i could not, most of the sources i found were not reliable or small mentions or from self created sites,i was treating each film as a separate article and each individual film would not pass notability,i see how the overall film series article could pass notability,but not each film solelyJukitzk (talk) 23:12, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about the the series, and actually the last two films have plenty of mention... but the series is why I addressed the article to share pertinent information about the series' films. And I also found plenty of sources through searches... sources that have not yet been used to improve it. Schmidt, Michael Q.00:19, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And in addendum,... after a "keep", and if the others feel it suitable, I am willing to split this article into three separate ones... but only if others feel three (or later perhaps more) locations serve the readers better than having the information in one place. Schmidt, Michael Q.06:09, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If we were talking about individual film articles then the notability would be shaky, but we're not and this article is ultimately about the film series as a whole. While I don't know that the individual films would really have enough coverage to pass notability guidelines, the film series as a whole does. This is an extremely common and popular alternative to having individual pages and it's done with book and film articles all the time, and there have been multiple cases where AfDs have closed with redirects to a series page (for films or movies) where there is a series page but no individual film/book pages. Basically what I'm saying is that there is a ton of precedent for series pages to have notability even if the sources talk about the individual books/films as opposed to the series as a whole. There's certainly enough coverage to merit a series page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)03:20, 17 April 2015 (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.
No findable references or work attributed to the organization, which is, according to the article, 117 years old. WP:PROD of 2009-12-05 was removed by DrGottlieb, but no valid rebut, case, or enhancement followed. Reference was made to DrGottlieb's book, but no apparent secondary reference — Eurodog (talk) 21:46, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. This appears to be either a complete hoax or else hoax information used to try to make an otherwise non-notable organization look notable. No reliable sources found; if this organization actually produced research and consultation for Fortune 500 companies and government agencies, there would be a multitude of references. Calamondin12 (talk) 15:42, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I cannot decide whether this is a hoax or just utterly non-notable; either way, it should go. Searches are complicated by the existence of other "Freund Groups" at the Universities of Manitoba and Berlin. Earlier versions of the article included a reference to this book by the group's "Acting Chair", which at least is real, though Worldcat records only one library holding, so it is hardly influential, and its existence tells us nothing about the Group. JohnCD (talk) 17:27, 17 April 2015 (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.
No credible claim of significance or importance to establish notability. Fails to meet standards of WP:COMPANY. A search for sources found no in-depth coverage of the restaurant chain. The only source cited does not support the content of the article (it is about the owner acquiring another restaurant chain). DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER23:50, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One slightly better-looking source, on the chain's franchising: [51] (I only see this one page, and I am assuming there's more on the previous page, therefore no !vote). Other sources are in majority restaurant directories and area listings. 野狼院ひさしu/t/c03:42, 10 April 2015 (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.
Fails WP:ORG. Much promotional content removed, but it still remains mainly promotional. Media coverage of the company seems to be solely related to the incident covered in the "Controversy" section. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 01:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Recommendation is to keep this article as it doesn’t fit any of the criteria for deletion listed under WP:DEL-REASON, and suggestions can be made for improvement rather than deletion.WP:ORG states that Wikipedia bases its decision about whether an organization is notable enough to justify a separate article on the verifiable evidence that the organization or product has attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the organization or product. Notability has been established through use of relevant, credible sources on this page (WP:DEL-REASON #8). Although media coverage deals primarily with the controversy, the sources listed are credible and are what helps to make the company notable. A search proves that other sources exist that could be added to the page in the future. (Cite examples: 1; 2; 3). Any other issues noted can be corrected through normal editing. If promotional language exists on the page (WP:DEL-REASON #4), then Template: Advert should be added to encourage users to correct the language, rather than deleting the page entirely.Tcom876 (talk) 19:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to read up on policy, but I am of the opinion that the available sources - including the ones you've listed here - are not "significant" and "independent" coverage of the topic, and do not demonstrate notability per WP standards, or indicate that it is a topic of lasting encyclopedic interest. The first link gives the company a brief mention in a short opinion piece, and the other two seem to be mostly promotional/advertisements. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 02:28, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The sources listed above are not included on the page, they are examples demonstrating the company’s notability in the media. The sources that are currently included within the article are reliable and significant, and while the bulk of the material on the page describes the company’s history and services (as most organization pages of this nature do) it covers the topics with a neutral point of view. If you feel like some of the language could still be improved, Template: Advert should be added to give users the chance to do so. Tcom876 (talk) 16:49, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to clean up the article. But I think it could be argued that what's left qualifies for a WP:A7 speedy delete, as no notability is claimed or demonstrated. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 09:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article. In regard to WP:A7, I don't think there are any grounds for this as all claims within the article are credible. In terms of notability, I have to vote to keep. Even after removing any sort of promotional material and non-independent sources, the company still received significant coverage from other, reliable sources WP:GNG. Commonlaw99 (talk) 21:43, 22 April 2015 (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.
Previously put up for PROD but removed without explanation by an IP. Subject fails WP:GNG. The only reference used is an obituary on her grandfather, which only mentions Stiller herself briefly. IMDb is listed in external links, but cannot be used as a citation per longstanding consensus that it isn't reliable for sourcing information. Should be deleted as no reliable secondary sources give much attention to her, and I can't think of any good target for redirecting the article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:50, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Being in a hugely famous entertainment family doesn't hurt her notability, plus she seems to have a long resume herself. I don't think the "yoga instructor" should be in her lede as that is not notable. —МандичкаYO 😜 23:34, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that despite any appearances in movies, there is very little (if any) discussion of Amy herself in reliable sources. Her family has nothing to do with how notable she is; being Ben Stiller's sister and Jerry and Anne Stiller's daughter is entirely moot. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:52, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Being related to someone famous sometimes increases the likelihood someone will make a Wikipedia article about you (see: Jim and Mary McCartney) and it will also increase the likelihood people will demand said article be deleted. I'm sure in the actor-stub category there are less notable actors. —МандичкаYO 😜 01:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF, which states you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on whether other articles do, or do not, exist. Articles on other subjects are irrelevant to this discussion. Also, notability is not inherited; the "Invalid criteria" and "Family" sections of WP:Notability (people) indicate that being related to someone famous does NOT automatically by itself make someone notable. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about "Otherstuff" - the point is people are more eager to delete her article because she's related to famous people. She's had many roles over many years and I don't agree there's not enough coverage about her. Did you bother to actually look her up? —МандичкаYO 😜 01:45, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I searched and found very little coverage on Amy herself within reliable, secondary sources. Therefore, she doesn't meet notability criteria. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:51, 17 April 2015 (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 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.
Keep What does "Unable to find any sources." mean when the current article already lists one eponymously named citation in a RS tech journal? Or when, apart from several ref deletions in recent weeks, it previously included a number of other sources.
I know nothing of Obix. But on this evidence alone, I would not seek to delete the article on it. Nor do I consider a clearly false boilerplate nomination (the nominator is bulk nominating many related articles, all with the same vacant rationale) of "Unable to find any sources." to be an accurate nomination. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Many related articles are failing to meet WP:GNG. 1 of those sources is a forum post. DeveloperIQ is a web citation to a webpage that has clearly never had any content. FOSS User is an open source magazine and that is not an official link from the FOSS User website (read: anyone can put in the magazine anything they want, making it a WP:SPS), I'll let you have the second DeveloperIQ citation. I do like that your argument was based on actual policy and facts this time, rather than editing my words so your argument would look better. ―Padenton|✉14:16, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not convinced at all by the sources in either the current or earlier versions of this article. If I am to interpret the HTTP redirect from rps-obix.com to practical-programming.org, the language either got renamed or superseded by PPL, but even then this seems to be a one-man project. As Czarkoff noted at the previous AfD, the sources are all of the type "here's a new prog. lang. and this is what it looks like", rather than in-depth coverage. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:54, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As noted above, the main web site does not even mention the name "Obix"- it is clearly a hobby language that died- no need to pollute wikipedia with it. 58.182.250.23 (talk) 16:38, 22 April 2015 (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.
Not notable. She is heavily involved in a small local charity but that seems to be it. There's a lack of coverage about her in independent reliable sources. Articles qoute her but say next to nothing about her.
1 Dead
2 Some quotes from her, no depth of coverage about her
3 Dead
4 Quote from her, no depth of coverage about her. Does not verify the text it follows
5 Quote from her, no depth of coverage about her. Does not verify the text it follows
6 Some quotes from her, no depth of coverage about her. Does not verify the text it follows
7 A promotion for the charity
8 Dead
9 Some quotes from her, no depth of coverage about her. Does not verify the text it follows
The dead links are local coverage that may or may not exist. The creator of this page, in this case using his Misty2011 account, has a history of faking verification, faking article titles, faking his identity, just straight out faking. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:32, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A brief review of both the Spanish wiki and Google search show multiple articles on the subject who easily meets GNG. She does not have to be internationally famous to meet GNG notability, regional notability is sufficient. Article clearly needs work. Tone of nominator to original creator of article indicate there may be more going on here. Deletion of an article is not the proper venue for resolving a dispute over what appears to be an unsubstantiated character assassination. I have reworked the article. There are multiple external sources, all working links, which establish that she has assisted in the founding of 20 libraries in her province. SusunW (talk) 14:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article has been vastly improved and individual clearly meets notability criteria. Also must note that creating 20 libraries in a nation like Argentina is a pretty significant achievement. As far as concerns about other editors who worked on the article early on, the various drama boards (ANI and the like) are the places to address editor behavior, not AfD pages. Montanabw(talk)21:57, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has been significantly improved since nomination, but I don't think this is really a case of WP:HEY because the pass of WP:GNG was already apparent in the nominated version. Nevertheless, thanks for all the improvements. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:31, 23 April 2015 (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.
It's unclear why the Shinano Grandserows article should be deleted, when all of the other teams in the Route Inn BCL (Baseball Challenge League) have existing articles. The team is a member in good standing of the league going on eight years now, and has employed a number of players with accompanying Wikipedia articles. The league itself is a legitimate independent baseball league that has been running since 2007 and this year expanded to eight teams. A good number of players from BCL have moved on to play for Nippon Professional Baseball. I've also added some more citations to the Grandserows article to demonstrate its notability -- stoshmaster (talk) 17:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
People who don't know anything about baseball seem to think minor league teams are "semi-professional". But they're not. The Baseball Reference Bullpen calls it professional, and I'd trust that source more than the Wikipedia article. From the Grandserows website: "BC LEAGUE is one of the biggest independent professional baseball leagues in the north central region of Japan".[58]Alex (talk) 21:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not appear to be a fully professional team, and thus fails the WP:CLUB criteria. The same can probably be said of all the other teams in that league. --DAJF (talk) 01:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All of the coverage appears to be routine sports reporting (standings, trades, etc.). I don't see anything that shows the team meets WP:GNG. As for the "professional" discussion, I think it depends on whether you define professional as getting paid at all or as making a living. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 15:31, 17 April 2015 (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.
Delete: no evidence that this is a notable term, rather than one used in a couple of organisations' descriptions of their projects. And, even if a standard term, means nothing more than the words at face value: a project profile is a profile of a project. Not article-worthy. PamD16:24, 22 April 2015 (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.
Keep- I have added some more information and references that should address the concerns expressed above. He does appear to have been a pioneer in the Scottish hip-hop scene. As well as being a recording artist the subject of this article has also been significantly active with a community development role. His various activities have led to coverage appearing in several newspapers as well as a book and a TV programme. Drchriswilliams (talk) 19:33, 12 April 2015 (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. Consensus is that the article does not meet the main notability guideline due to the lack of "significant" coverage in reliable secondary sources. Davewild (talk) 07:11, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable businessperson with minor awards, written in a highly promotional manner. The apparently impressive "t" is a list invented by a newspaper, not an award. A writings section list a contribution to one compendium and one newspaper item. Notice the unusual reference style , apparently adapted from some other publication. DGG ( talk ) 19:16, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
. DGG ( talk ) 19:16, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Grace is an important person in the Southeast Asia entrepreneurship / startup scene and a leading social entrepreneur in the region which is why I created the page. I am happy to take feedback on the "unusual" reference style, so it would be good if DGG could explain what he finds unusual and how he would suggest I reference the various news articles etc. Tobias Tan 18:10, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
. Tobiastan ( Tobias Tan) 18:10, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Hub Singapore is apparently based out of the NYC Academy, 113 Somerset Road. However I don't know whether it's an initiative or similar of the NYC, which would make the Hub a semi-state body, or if it is just leasing space and services from the NYC. The Hub Singapore website doesn't make clear what relationship, if any, they have with the council. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 17:31, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The Hub Singapore is an independent co-working space and is incorporated as a private limited company in Singapore (The Hub Singapore Pte Ltd). I have been operating an angel / seed investment fund out of Singapore since 2004 and I can vouch for Grace and say that she has a high standing in both entrepreneurial, government and diplomatic circles. She is a frequent speaker around Southeast Asia, both on campuses and on television. I note in the article that it is mentioned that she was even a TEDx speaker in the past and that she is advising the Malaysian government. Would be a little puzzled if she is not qualified for a Wikipedia entry given that she is probably the leading social entrepreneurship proponent in Southeast Asia and she has a high number of credible references. That The Guardian chooses to mention her among the "50 voices of social entrepreneurship" (globally) (and alongside people like Nick Clegg and Richard Branson) should be a strong reason to make it tip in her favour. User:Klippgen (User talk:Klippgen) 00:39, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sources are either one-paragraph copy/paste bios, interviews, or mere mentions (some don't even mention her at all). The Oxford reference is probably the only reliable source that talks about her in any detail. Primefac (talk) 10:31, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Challenge - I am surprised about the aggressiveness here. I can not find any references that do not mention her, could you please list the references you are referring to? I am happy to re-write this article and make it smaller if that makes more sense, but I disagree that she is not notable based on careful reading of Wikipedia's rigid notability guidelines. In the context of Southeast Asia, she is definitely notable and the sum of the references is a reflection of that. User:Tobiastan (User Tobiastan) 00:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the sources are all either written by her or don't have her as the main subject, and reading the article it's a little confusing to what she's actually notable for. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)20:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - Sai does appear to have created some real world notability for herself, as evidence by the numerous pubications which mentyion her and/or her company. Unfortunately, it does not appear any reliable sources have written about her as a person in any detail yet, so she there isn't enough to write an article around and she doesn't meet our definition of notability because of it. Ping @Oo7565: who accepted this at AfC in case I missed something. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:29, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Update / Keep. Only one article is written by Sai herself, there were mistakes in the references and one double ref. to the same article that now has been removed. There are more articles in print that have Sai as the main subject, I am working on adding them as well. I still remain convinced that she meets the Wikipedia notability guidelines given her affiliations with the United Nations, The Skoll Foundation, TEDx, as a successful founder of one of Southeast Asia's leading co-working spaces, from founding an Indonesian charity and as a voice of social entrepreneurship making it to international newspapers. User:tobiastan (User talk:tobiastan!) 9:24, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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.
Comment regarding whether it is a professional team. The league's article describes the competition as semi-professional, with players earning a standard salary of 150,000 per month, with performance bonuses of up to an extra 50,000 per month. The Japanese article expands on this by saying that each player signs a "professional contract". However, it also clarifies that players only get paid for the seven months of the year that the league is active, and that they have a support system to help athletes find temporary work during the off-season. A person could not live in Japan on an annual salary of 1.4 million yen (the maximum possible payment including all performance bonuses). So I do not think it is possible to say that the team is part of a league of fully professional players. But if an athlete getting paid approximately US$10,000 to US$15,000 is enough to call them professional, then I stand to be corrected.
Otherwise, the question must then turn to whether there is enough independent coverage to support the notability of the team. I would like to do some more research before commenting further on that. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 07:37, 14 April 2015 (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 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 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.
nafSadh did say 04:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
