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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:04, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Necmettin Bilal Erdoğan

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

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

Not a notable person (only a relative of a notable person) Gilded Snail (talk) 04:37, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

__________

To a US/English reader Bilal Erdogan may not be seem notable at first glance. But in Turkish context, esp. after AKP's corruption scandal he was one of the guy on the focus because of his recorded phone tapes with his father (RT Erdogan) and the foundation (TURGEV) that is by run him. Thus I'd say he is much more notable than just being the son of a PM.

To support my claim I made a search on Google News and here are the results:

Bilal Erdogan found 44300 articles > https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=bilal+erdogan&tbm=nws

Arbitrarily, I chose Chealsea Clinton and it found 22000 articles > https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=chelsea%20clinton&tbm=nws

Regards Yakamoz51 (talk) 11:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yakamoz51, I'm sorry, I didn't realize there was more context to be known. Is Bilal Erdogan notable outside of the AKP scandal/TURGEV issues? Perhaps the contents of this article can be merged with the articles about the scandals. If his main notability is because of a specific event, normally that person is put under the article for that event, but there are lots of exceptions. Thoughts? Gilded Snail (talk) 00:37, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He became more famous after the corruption, but I think he deserves his own article on WP. Yakamoz51 (talk) 08:47, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:35, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 15:32, 24 July 2014 (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. Euryalus (talk) 04:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tanu Sharma

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

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS. Other than the fact that the subject has accused of sexual harassment against some personnel in India TV, there is no other coverage about her in sources. Fails WP:BIO. — LeoFrank  ^Talk 03:49, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — LeoFrank  ^Talk 03:49, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — LeoFrank  ^Talk 03:51, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, the fact is that matter is in Indian media as well as Internationally. This is not just a news, but a fight against wrong system where powerful people are tempering system. I am surprise that User:LeoFrank has taken suddenly U-turn. There are enough RS, shows the importance of the article. GKCH (talk) 04:58, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You need to go through WP:NOTNEWS. You also need to stop soapboxing the subject on the article. — LeoFrank  ^Talk 05:10, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There is an edit war going on between the creator of the article GKCH and the nominator here, which is never good. please discuss on talk page or here. Even though the article might not pass notability and might have soapboxing content, the creator can work on while it is prepared for deletion to save it, nothing objectionable was being added that you have to aggressively start reverting everything. So I would suggest do not get too involved after you have nominated, wait, let the deletion process take its course, limit your involvement to deletion discussion, if you can. GKCH has reported harassment on my talk, please be civil, talk it out for WP:DR. --Ekabhishek^talk 03:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, person is now in public domain. This case established also establish her notability. She was already an notable anchor in a News channel.125.63.75.30 (talk) 04:31, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator, and also WP:BLP1E. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom and Cullen. Clear BLP1E. ukexpat (talk) 12:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom. "a fight against wrong system where powerful people are tempering system." isn't a valid reason to retain the page.  NQ  talk 12:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No indication she is actually notable for anything except trying to commit suicide, and even that is not clear that it even rises to the level of one-event. Lots and lots of people try to commit suicide.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. NOTNEWs, BIO, RECENTISM, BLP1E ... the list is long. Also, note this at ANI may have some relevance. - Sitush (talk) 16:45, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Odd that there is more listed here than in the article itself. — Wyliepedia 16:49, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. I've speedied this as WP:A7 (non-notable web content) and as WP:G10 because it's very, very close to being an attack page. There is no reason for this to be on Wikipedia at this point in time, if ever. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:58, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tumblr-4chan war of 2014

Tumblr-4chan war of 2014 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Doesn't seem to meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for events. It seems to be just a description of an internet forum argument. Gilded Snail (talk) 03:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. This is not Encyclopedia Dramatica. Tchaliburton (talk) 03:45, 9 July 2014 (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. ‑Scottywong| prattle _ 02:42, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Line at Dawn

A Line at Dawn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG or WP:BOOK--180.172.239.231 (talk) 02:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I completed the nom for the IP. Ansh666 03:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions.180.172.239.231 (talk) 04:05, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I'm unable to find coverage to establish that this book meets WP:GNG or WP:BK.  Gongshow   talk 05:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per above. No reviews or independent coverage that I can find that would support notability.TheBlueCanoe 12:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Coverage (in Chinese) here (Radio Canada International). In depth bio of the author here with a description of the book by Association des écrivains chinois du Québec au Canada. Not sure if this is sufficient to push it over the notability threshold.  Philg88 ^♦talk 07:33, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good find. I'm not sure it passes the notability threshold, but it's enough for me to withdraw my vote.TheBlueCanoe 04:38, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:35, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: I originally closed this but reopened since IMO believe there's no notability and merits a discussion

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:26, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. It's possible that other Chinese-language sources exist, and there's an argument to be made that we should assume they do in the interest of countering systemic bias, but there don't seem to be any English-language sources, and the two sources presented by Philg88 don't strike me as enough to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:BOOK. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:42, 27 July 2014 (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 Consensus is KEEP. Dreadstar ☥ 08:44, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Guo Xiaojun

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

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

Contested PROD. This guy is famous only for his arrest and unlike Guo Feixiong, he hasn't done anything remarkable. Clearly this is WP:BLP1E.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 02:26, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I completed the nom for the IP. Ansh666 03:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions.180.172.239.231 (talk) 04:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 04:30, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination unless coverage in non-Falun Gong sources is added. TLA 3x ♭ → ♮ 04:08, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article includes 20 citations, only one of which is a Falun Gong source.TheBlueCanoe 12:15, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

None of them are used to verify anything notable that is not related to his ordeal. TLA 3x ♭ → ♮ 15:58, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, sources by Amnesty International and United Nations, he is the subject of European Parliament discussion. Let's delete vandalism, not a "prisoner of conscience". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:34, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. He's a university professor twice-imprisoned as a prisoner of conscience, with significant and recurring coverage from Amnesty International, in addition to the UN, EU parliament, BBC news, etc. Doesn't meet criteria for deletion under BLP1E.TheBlueCanoe 12:15, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Firstly, he is not a professor but a lecturer, thus fails WP:PROF. Indeed, he is a prisoner of conscience, but unlike other prisoners of conscience in China, he hasn't done anything remarkable. He was arrested only because he was a practitioner of Falun Gong. In my own view, being the practitioner of Falun Gong may not be regarded as something unusual. Actually thousands of Falun Gong practitioners are arrested in China every year, he is just one of them. What makes he distinguish from these thousands of victims is the media coverage of his case. A person who is only famous as the victim of a case may not meet WP:BIO. If the case itself is notable enough (passes WP:EVENT), we should create a new article about the case, then redirect this BIO to the new article. If not, delete. @TheBlueCanoe: --180.172.239.231 (talk) 13:22, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: With coverage from Amnesty International, UNHCHR, BBC and others, there's no question but that there is a notable topic. I am sympathetic to the view that BLP1E needs to be considered, and perhaps the article should be renamed "Imprisonment of Guo Xiaojun" (with the current title as a redirect) because the controversy over the imprisonment and the events leading up to it form the bulk of the present article. --RexxS (talk) 16:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep: Anyone listed as a prisoner of conscience by Amnesty International clearly meets WP:GNG. Nominator also should be rangeblocked as a sock hiding behind an anon IP,very first edit is a prod tag; the IP geolocates to China probably a vigilante at best, at worst, an attempt by a minion of the Chinese government to suppress the very existence of this individual. Montanabw^(talk) 18:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply I nominated this article for deletion because the corresponding article on zhwiki had been nomintaed and the notability standards of the two wikis are almost the same.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 02:27, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought Nivekin proposed the deletion in the Chinese Wikipedia.--Good afternoon (talk) 11:22, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, WP:BLP1E--Shizhao (talk) 01:27, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. --Good afternoon (talk) 11:22, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Not a BLP1E issue. He has significant coverage outside of his arrest sufficient to pass the notability threshold. For example, this article relates to students from Shanghai Jiao Tong University protesting about his persecution by the Chinese government. There is a lot more coverage out there in Chinese sources - perfectly valid in Wikipedia terms to avoid systematic bias.  Philg88 ^♦talk 07:10, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sufficient coverage to meet the notability guideline and with the two arrests I do not see this as a WP:BLP1E issue per TheBlueCanoe. Davewild (talk) 07:55, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to 1990 FIFA World Cup knockout stage. I've redirected given that there's an obvious target and so that anyone can merge the content, if they so desire. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:55, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cameroon vs England (1990)

Cameroon vs England (1990) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

We're now writing articles on individual World Cup matches? I see no notability here, no outside coverage, and a poor precedent being set, one where non-notable individual World Cup games can have their own articles. Seattle (talk) 13:44, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - nothing to set this game apart from many others. Non-notable. GiantSnowman 17:27, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Nothing particularly notable about this match. Pretty run-of-the-mill as World Cup quarter-finals go. – PeeJay 17:33, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into 1990 FIFA World Cup knockout stage. Tchaliburton (talk) 01:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This particular game is not notable on its own, and an article about every individual game is clearly not appropriate. Being "the only quarter-final to produce more than one goal" is not criteria for notability. --Jersey92 (talk) 15:48, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• delete only the grand final would get inherent notability. Unless the game had a lot of controversy, it does not merit an individual article. Next thing would be cricket world cup quarter finals. LibStar (talk) 17:01, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into 1990 FIFA World Cup knockout stage#Cameroon vs England over redirect. The fact that this quarter-final was the only of Italy 1990 with more than one goal is not relevant. But there are some particular elements. This was the first quarter-final reached by an African team and the second time (and by now the only after 1966) that England reached semifinals. Anyway, the notabilty, or its lack of, could be the same of Cameroon vs Colombia (1990). --Dэя-Бøяg 15:55, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into 1990 FIFA World Cup knockout stage#Cameroon vs England per above. –Davey2010 • (talk) 07:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails notability. Nothing sets it apart to justify a stand-alone article. SW3 5DL (talk) 12:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker^talk 03:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relist rationale - as no arguments have been presented against a merge, one would seem required by the above discussion in view of WP:ATD, that having been said, I don't see a clear consensus on what to merge it to, and it would be inappropriate for me to supervote that. So, focus please on why this shouldn't be merged if you believe it shouldn't, where it should be merged if you believe it should and why, and of course, if you think both options are wrong, we want to here that too.. and why. Thanks. --j⚛e decker^talk 03:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Nothing to merge really. The only material not already covered within the 1990 FIFA World Cup knockout stage article is the Overview section, and it does not seem necessary to merge this info as it's unsourced and such game summaries do not appear in the other knockout stage articles anyway.  Gongshow   talk 05:51, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and do not merge: per Gongshow the material to be merged is unsourced and unnecessary play-by-play. The text is actually mostly duplicating the information shown in "The Match" section (which is already covered in 1990 FIFA World Cup knockout stage), leaving only a couple of trivial remarks. The match itself is not notable. BethNaught (talk) 12:34, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per Gongshow. Non-notable match, nothing to merge as there is nothing sourced. Fenix down (talk) 13:39, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/merge/redirect and please do the same thing with Cameroon v Colombia (1990 FIFA World Cup). Nergaal (talk) 22:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This particular game is not notable on its own, and an article about every individual game is clearly not appropriate. Being "the only quarter-final to produce more than one goal" is not criteria for notability. There does not appear to be sufficient new sourced material to do a merge. So, Delete, not Merge. --Jersey92 (talk) 00:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Clearly we need a major re-think on the notability guidelines around individual football matches, so that only truly seismic, epoch-defining events with lasting global coverage, such as 1993 Football League Third Division play-off Final, make the cut. 94.8.61.183 (talk) 14:05, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I remember the game, and it was a tremendously exciting match. However, I don't think it is notable enough in any way to justify an article on its own though. The important points are already covered in the main 1990 World Cup article - I'm inclined to agree with Deletion.ShugSty (talk) 16:36, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jim and Mary McCartney

Jim and Mary McCartney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I think it is very clear that the context of the article in non-notable, we can't just say that the family of an influential figure is notable by itself. And yes, the article has GA status granted in 2007, but that doesn't have to affect the discussion on its notability, as the subject was never resolved. So, I think that the article's GA status should be cut off and the article deleted, because as I said, it lacks notability and interest. - Phill24th (talk). 19:31, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. If someone is really really famous, then their parents and other family members end up getting lots of attention from lots of sources. In this case, plenty of Beatles biographies have gone into considerable detail about the members' parents, starting with the Hunter Davies bio in 1968. So if all these books talk about McCartney's parents, then yes they become notable. Whether their lives are of interest, as you also bring up, is a matter for individual readers to decide; no one if forced to read any article. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:34, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep If nothing else, it's eligible for keeping as a spin-out of Paul McCartney. It's common to break up long biographies into sections (e.g. Early life of Marilyn Monroe, Early life of George Gordon Byron and several other articles on the same pattern), and this is certainly an area of Paul's life that has received coverage in a lot of books. And even if the proposer isn't interested in the Beatles, I think the vast amount of books published about every aspect of their lives and careers indicates that a lot of people are. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:58, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker^talk 02:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The article is well detailed and highly reference, which alone shows there is enough material on the subjects to make them notable. Notability isn't inherited no but it can then come to exist as a side product. JTdale ^Talk 03:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the others above; valid as a WP:SPINOUT of the Paul McCartney article. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:04, 9 July 2014 (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. j⚛e decker^talk 18:14, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Harborne High Street Bus Corridor, Birmingham

Harborne High Street Bus Corridor, Birmingham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unsourced bus cruft, "bus corridor" doesn't even exist neither, Fails GNG and WP:NOT. –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:29, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Per nom. Wikipedia is not a list of indiscriminate information.  Philg88 ^♦talk 04:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:29, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:29, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker^talk 02:49, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• delete no evidence the bus corridor is even an official name. Regardless fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 13:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NOTTRAVEL.Charles (talk) 14:28, 17 July 2014 (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. SpinningSpark 20:11, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

George Horton (YouTube)

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

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

Having a viral video does not constitute notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ENTERTAINER. Tchaliburton (talk) 19:14, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Granted, but this is simply what he is 'best known' for. On that note, would contest that there is a failure of WP:ENTERTAINER due to the fact that there is a substantial fanbase, which in turn owes itself to unique contributions to the field of prank comedy of the channel. There are many other videos on the channel with many views; this is not a one hit wonder. [Koreanspy12] 01:02, 25 June 2014 (GMT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koreanspy12 (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 18:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep Numerous sources; what appears to have happened is channel has been renamed, and under the previous name, a wikipedia article was created and uncontested - Jesterlads - if the channel merits a wikipedia article, why not the youtuber himself? This article is clearly mainly pertaining to the channel, which seems to be notable, there are hundreds of sources online, most of which mention George. And i know imdb isn't fantastic, but he has apparently appeared on tv. Blondie86 (talk) 22:20, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker^talk 02:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete He's pretty tiny for a youtuber; there are literally hundreds of channels with 3 million views. The news mentions are also nothing more than the blog-style posts these outlets make several dozen times a day when anything gets a few hundred thousand views. JTdale ^Talk 03:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Trivial mentions. There's no significant coverage in reliable sources. Citations consist only of embedded videos. There needs to be an actual article about the person. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:51, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG. To be honest, I'd probably support the deletion of the group/channel as failing WP:ORGDEPTH too. That they had one video that got some coverage in mainstream media does not make them notable. There are plenty of people who have YouTube videos that have since been featured on compilation shows or even "YouTube video of the week" news items. The sites hosting copies of the video really don't constitute coverage at all - they are just hosting a copy of the video and the only mention of the group or the individuals involved comes from the in-video credits - the subjects covering themselves - and from comments members of the group have posted into comments sections under some of the videos. The self-promotion is strong with this one. St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:40, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not really notable. Besides, there are other channels with more subscribers that also don't have pages. Besides, his channel already has an article, right here, so this is kind of pointless. -- Matthew - (talk · userpage · contributions) 13:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non notable youtuber, Fails GNG. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Video may have received a bit of coverage, but subject himself has not and is not notable. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 18:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 14:14, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of global climate system components

List of global climate system components (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Seems to be a case of WP:OR; not everyone agrees on what components make up the global climate system; see Nasa's opinion at the bottom of the page. Also, the page says it's a quick lookup tool. In short, doesn't follow WP:NOTGUIDE --gdfusion (talk|contrib) 02:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• delete This is not something for which this presentation is really appropriate. Mangoe (talk) 14:29, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:36, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep; good job locating the additional sources. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:10, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Hall (cyclist)

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

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

Only coverage is routine and trivial. Does not meet WP:GNG and fails WP:NCYCLING. Tchaliburton (talk) 16:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - She doesn't quite satisfy WP:GNG notability requirements. The best source seems to be the United Health Care page, but unfortunately it's not an independent source.- MrX 17:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The notability guidelines in WP:NCYCLING cover Mens professional cycling events and I don't think these accurately cover Womens cycling. For example, there is only one Womens Grand Tour currently running (Giro d'Italia Femminile), there are drastically fewer races than those which make up the Mens UCI continental circuits. Within the scope of Womens cycling I don't think notability can be judged on competing in Grand Tours, competing in any of the monuments or winning a stage/classification at a stage race because they either do not exist, are not as common as in Mens cycling or have only been running for a fraction of the time of the Mens events. In order to improve the coverage of Womens cycling on Wikipedia I think that a rider actively competing for a UCI Professional Women's team should be notable enough to have an article. XyZAn (talk) 17:28, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Would seem to pass WP:GNG. There's this article about her that I found in five seconds. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:13, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure that a single local blog is enough to denote notability. Is there any other coverage of her? Tchaliburton (talk) 13:45, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• There's another article, here and she's detailed on PCS XyZAn (talk) 14:23, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The first of those helps lend notability, but the latter two don't. Tchaliburton (talk) 15:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, she's slated to compete in the 2014 Giro d'Italia Femminile (see start list here) so would therefore meet the requirements set forth in WP:NCYCLING (even though this is for male cyclists you quoted this earlier) XyZAn (talk) 14:31, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Those are the male criteria. The gender-neutral criteria are: "Have competed at an Olympics or UCI World Championship" or "Have finished on the podium at a UCI World Cup or event." Has she done these? Tchaliburton (talk) 15:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker^talk 02:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Other sources include Cycling Illustrated, Canadian Cyclist, Bicycling Magazine, Pedal Magazine, Cycling Fans, combined with the in-depth sources, adds to notability. Two issues: her name is fairly common (there are other Katie Halls out there); also, the linkage between her racing and a business (United Healthcare) means there is unfortunately a promotional issue tied in with the subject, which can be problematic. About comments above, I agree Bicycle Story reference is not suitable but Norcal Cycling News and Bike World News are suitable, as per WP:RS.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:59, 9 July 2014 (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. j⚛e decker^talk 18:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ajman City Centre

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

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

70-store mall. In addition to it not being notable, the consensus, as reflected in the discussion at "Common Outcomes; Malls", is that we don't generally retain stand-alone articles of malls below 500K sq. ft. (some editors believe the cutoff is a higher square footage) – which this mall is clearly below. Epeefleche (talk) 02:14, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A google search failed to locate references which would satisfy WP:N. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:47, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have already been to this shopping centre, It's real however i consider this article is too insignificant but it can be improved by someone else who knows about this mall. --Prince Sulaiman ^{Talk to me} 22:53, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, a small regional mall. Probably quite nice, but that doesn't mean it's notable. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:45, 17 July 2014 (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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Lynds

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

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

This article is about a self-taught physicist who has had one paper published in a refereed journal. There are many, many scientists in the world who have made far more significant contributions to science without being notable enough to have WP articles about them. The paper was discussed in the popular media at the time, but this does not establish notability. Lynds is good at selling himself to the media. He also has a documented history of misrepresenting his identity and education, and of using sockpuppets when communicating with the media. The article has recently been the subject of an edit war between user SamW2 and a number of other users. User SamW2 had no history of contributing to WP before getting involved with this article. Since sockpuppetry could be an issue, I should clarify my own identity. I don't normally log in to WP in order to edit, and I have been participating in the recent work on the article from IP address 75.83.65.81. However, it is not possible to go through the deletion process as an anonymous user, so for that purpose I've logged into the account Fashionslide, which has existed since 2011. My name is Ben Crowell, and I'm a physicist. Fashionslide (talk) 02:09, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:11, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• delete. GS h-index of 5. Too early for WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:15, 9 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. (Disclaimer: I too have participated recently on this article). This has been a POV-pushing article for a long time. The only peer-reviewed contribution from Lynds appears to be a 2003 FPL paper, which generated brief media coverage. However, it was noted in a journal article shortly after that the ideas in this paper were entirely preceded by Henri Bergson in his 1896 book Matter and Memory, evidently unbeknownst to Lynds or his paper's referees (S E Robbins (2004) On time, memory and dynamic form. Consciousness and Cognition 13(4), 762-788: "Lynds, his reviewers and consultants (e.g., J.J.C. Smart) are apparently unaware of his total precedence by Bergson"). Moreover, this paper has only been cited 5 times in the >10 years since its publication (WoS). These observations indicate impact far below even the average working physicist. Agricola44 (talk) 15:35, 9 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
• delete for the reasons given above.--Fashionslide (talk) 15:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The academic career is obviously not notable, so we have to look to the media coverage. But that fails WP:BIO1E and WP:EVENTCRIT (no lasting historical significance). —David Eppstein (talk) 15:59, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. I was bought here through the WP:WPNZ alerting system and have to say that the guy has no visibility in New Zealand. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Be aware that you are voting on a version of the Peter Lynds page that has been battered into nothing, and negatively slanted, by Fashionslide, Agricola, and David Epstein (an admin), who seem to find Lynds' very existence upsetting. I have some theories as to why. Look at the talk page, look at the original version of the page, look Lynds up on google. He has other papers, some of which have also received a good amount of attention. Then again, with this sort of carry on, Peter is probably better off not being on Wikipedia. SamW2 (talk) 21:35, 9 July 2014 (UTC) — SamW2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• As was extensively discussed at the talk page, none of those papers are published – their views have not been accepted, nor even vetted by the mainstream physics community. The version of the article to which you refer was basically all WP:OR. A subtle point is that we're debating Lynds' notability, not the notability of any particular version of the article. Folks are free to go back and look, but the closing admin will make the final decision based upon whether or not Lynds himself satisfies any of the notability guidelines, not whether some particular bit of text happens to be or not to be in the current version. I'm very sorry for any anxiety this has caused. Agricola44 (talk) 21:54, 9 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

• Ok. One more time. Archive pages seem to be fine for Biography of living persons pages, especially if those papers have received documentable attention. 1000s of pages here show this. Many people also solely publish a paper on Arxiv. Take Grigori Perelman and Garret Lisi. However, I just did some more searching and found this http://www.necsi.edu/events/iccs7/viewpaper.php?id=225. It's a short peer reviewed (look up the info about the proceedings) conference paper on his cosmology theory. A paper from the same conference by others on Lynds's paper is here http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.5046 Google Lynd's paper to find a lot of discussion and articles about it, such as http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/lynds1.shtml and http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/111 I also found these quotes here http://www.newswise.com/articles/it-all-began-with-an-end-new-theory-on-origin-and-future-of-the-universe

"About Lynds' theory, Dr. Paul Frampton, Louis D. Rubin Jr. Distinguished Professor of Physics at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, says, "I enjoyed reading Lynds' article about an endless and beginningless universe, especially as I have myself worked on such a model recently (Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 071301, 2007). Lynds addresses the key issue of the second law of thermodynamics in a novel way and I'll be curious to see how far he can take it."

Dr. Werner Israel, a Professor of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Alberta, Canada, and a Fellow at Canada's Institute for Advanced Study Cosmology and Gravity Programme, says, "I found Peter Lynds' ideas on possible reversals of time's arrow interesting, in part because I have entertained less bold but not dissimilar ideas myself. In 1991 I co-authored a note in Nature which speculated on the possibility that the growth of entropy near a big crunch might be, not reversed exactly, but enormously diluted by a process called mass inflation at the inner horizons of coalescing black holes. This would make a transition to an expanding phase very nearly reversible thermodynamically."Small text

His paper on Zeno's paradoxes seems to be referenced in a large number of articles about the paradoxes on the web. A google search for "solution to Zeno's paradoxes" brings his paper up as the second result. His consciousness paper is also discussed and referenced extensively on the web. As as example, there is this (a very recent reference in a good psychology journal) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4013454/ His first paper has 71 citations on google scholar, the others around 10 each.

As for Lynds' possible notability, among many, there are articles such as this http://archive.wired.com/wired/archive/13.06/physics.html and this http://www.theguardian.com/education/2003/aug/14/research.highereducation SamW2 (talk) 00:45, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

None of which seems to satisfy WP:NACADEMICS. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. But many of those aren't relevant to Lynds as he isn't in academia. That he isn't, and doesn't have a degree, is part of what makes him qualify as notable. He qualifies under WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. David Epstein claimed that he is notable for just one event and has had no lasting impact. The wired article came out two years after his first paper was published, and the impact of that work is ongoing, as his Zeno paper shows. His papers since (the existence of which some of you seem to want to deny) have also received documentable attention, and his work seems to be ongoing. I also found this (look down the page a little) https://dir.yahoo.com/science/physics/physicists/ SamW2 (talk) 23:36, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notability has nothing to do with level of education. David knows mathematics as well as anyone here and his claim is correct: the work is not WP:LASTING and the publicity was written by people who apparently did not understand that these kinds of paradoxes had been resolved long ago – for example by Weierstrass' disproving of the idea of infinitesimals. (Our own WP page on Zeno's paradox was a little murky on this point, so I added another reference from Bertrand Russell.) Finally, I think you're confusing the concept of a paper (which is published) versus a manuscript (which is not). Agricola44 (talk) 21:40, 14 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

"A google search ... brings his paper up as the second result" is basically arguing WP:GHITS, which is irrelevant to notability. Agricola44 (talk) 19:36, 12 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

It's not a case of google hits, but the paper's google rankng and ranking for that search string, which is mostly a question of links and their quality. Google is saying that Lynd's Zeno paper is very notable in connection to Zeno's paradoxes. SamW2 (talk) 23:36, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"It's not a case of google hits" (no WP:GHITS) ... "Google is saying" (WP:GHITS). It can't be both ways. Agricola44 (talk) 13:51, 13 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

• Weak deleteDelete. This is a biography article, and does it meet the GNG? This as best I can determine is a judgment call; essentially we have an independent thinker coming up with a radical theory in the gray area between physics and philosophy, with a hard-to-prove and hard-to-test theory about a subject as baffling as the metaphysical nature of time. GNG requires multiple independent sources, and I think we have this here, strictly speaking, that Lynds posited this theory, and so forth, but the problem being that the sources, themselves, say that Lynds' theory is only speculation, that they don't fully understand it, that they have no way of knowing whether this is true or verifiable. Further, the article is a sort of open invitation to indulge in the theorizing itself, that is, it would be hard to keep the theoretical aspects of this subject away from the biography of the thinker. So we find ourselves in a tough situation here, specifically in that how can we keep to the Wikipedia pillar of not having any original research? See, if we keep this article, in effect Wikipedia is giving credence to the theory in some respect, and I do not think this is something Wikipedia is qualified to do. That is, isn't it up to the academics and physicists to render some kind of opinion on the merits of this issue? I think so. I think it best to defer to those trained, although there is a streak in me that likes challenging theories (even if untrue) simply because they inspire further thinking, further debate, and so forth. If Lynds' ideas gain greater credence in the professional community, then the article can be refloated, but for now, I think the wise choice is to delete it, but please remember my opinion is only from a non-academic whose only acquaintance with real physical knowledge comes from falling off a ladder while painting.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:18, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Regarding "an independent thinker coming up with a radical theory", it seems that once Robbins' paper was published in 2004 (see above), the community became aware that Lynds' paper was preceded Bergson in his 1896 book Matter and Memory. This is likely why Lynds' paper has been barely cited in the peer-reviewed literature in >10 years since its publication. Agricola44 (talk) 13:51, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply. Yes I read that in your delete comment above, but I am wondering if you think Lynds read Bergson? My guess is that Lynds didn't (although it is a guess only), but if I'm right, then what appears to be the case is that Bergson's theory came up roughly 100 years ago, was promptly (and properly?) forgotten, resurrected in the 21st century by Lynds perhaps with a new emphasis, independently (probably), and the theory still remains highly and influentially forgettable. What I think would be worthwhile would be to include this discussion in philosophy-related deletion discussions, since isn't this really more of a topic in philosophy (really metaphysical philosophy) rather than physics? It seems to be in no-man's land between physics and philosophy. Again, I think that is another of the many issues at play in this discussion.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:02, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Lynds was very likely not aware of Bergson's book. The fact that Lynds work was published only means that his paper happened to be assigned to one or two particular referees who likewise were not familiar with this book. This phenomenon happens much more frequently than people realize (the average researcher only has command of a small portion of the results in her field), which is why there is considerable duplication in the literature. Bergson's theory was, in fact, not forgotten and his book remains widely read and cited, for example it is still in print, is held by a large number of libraries, is frequently reviewed, etc. It is probably more correct to say that this particular topic (between physics and philosophy) is relatively obscure. As with many of the "classical questions" of philosophy, mathematic resolved Zeno's paradox long ago, so this sort of thing simply is not of interest to the physics/math community as a research problem. Agricola44 (talk) 18:14, 13 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

• I have looked at Lynds's paper on Zeno's paradoxes, and while I see distinct resemblances with Bergson's theory of time, they are not much stronger than those between Robert Grosseteste's theories of the creation of the universe and modern popular accounts of Big Bang theory. And the paper actually zooms fairly neatly at the weak spot in the standard mathematical resolution of Zeno's paradoxes - the fact that it substitutes for our naive conception of continuity a conceptually very different alternative based on sufficiently close discrete points. Having said that, I suspect that Lynds's view meets equal but different problems philosophically, and there is absolutely no indication that Lynds understands how, for his theory to be seriously acceptable, it needs not only to cast fresh illumination on one mostly philosophical problem but also explain in detail how it supports the rest of modern physics or supplants it with something in similar detail that is at least as well supported by current evidence. So at this stage, I'm certainly not arguing to keep. PWilkinson (talk) 22:05, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• He has other papers on the topic like this one http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/240 They were previously on the page. There are also articles like this http://itotd.com/articles/582/quantized-time/ SamW2 (talk) 11:14, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• You're citing a blog that has gems like "if [Lynds] were correct, that would mean that calculus as we know it must be essentially wrong". These are not reliable sources. Agricola44 (talk) 15:12, 14 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

• Updated from weak delete to delete (modified vote above) based on Agricola.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:16, 14 July 2014 (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. User:Stalwart111 makes a compelling case here. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmut L. Ünlü

Mahmut L. Ünlü (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Was BLP PRODed some time back, one link is repeated, the other is broken and at the end of the day, I don't see notability that passes WP:GNG and a lot of unsourced BLP info. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, I just added a NY Times source which calls him notable Wikiguys12 (talk) 23:23, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 18:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 00:22, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the NYTimes article is the only coverage I could find of the subject and all it does is confirm he runs the company and is happy about the success of Turkey's currency. It's hardly significant coverage and it certainly doesn't "call him notable". It's actually coverage of Turkey's currency with commentary from him (about his own business). The other sources come from his company and don't constitute coverage in independent reliable sources. Thus, in my view, he doesn't meet WP:GNG. Even if we accepted the NYTimes article as being significant coverage in a reliable source (which I don't think it is), it's still only one source and we need coverage in multiple sources. St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:37, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms

Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Advertising for advocacy group DGG ( talk ) 21:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Nice amount of source discussion. — Cirt (talk) 15:04, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 18:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 00:21, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. WP is not a soapbox or means of promotion. Mr. Guye (talk) 03:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Family Guy#Other media. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:28, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Family Guy: It Takes a Village Idiot, and I Married One

Family Guy: It Takes a Village Idiot, and I Married One (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Long-unreferenced book article that does not substantiate the notability of the title. Fails WP:NBOOK. Mikeblas (talk) 12:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Family Guy#Other media: I found mentions in local press[1][2] but nothing like the coverage needed to make a book notable. - Colapeninsula (talk) 16:21, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 00:21, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per Colapeninsula. The book is certainly notable within the context of Family Guy. However, it is not nearly notable enough for a stand-alone article. As such, it is best covered within Family Guy#Other media. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge is reasonable. Bearian (talk) 16:30, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Tough, Tough Toys for Tough, Tough Boys. SpinningSpark 20:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Design Faults in the Volvo 760 Turbo

Design Faults in the Volvo 760 Turbo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Limited-edition chapbook of short stories with no claim to notability. Fails WP:NBOOK, and tiny press run seems to guarantee that we'll not find references. Mikeblas (talk) 13:05, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Tough, Tough Toys for Tough, Tough Boys. This volume contains two short stories, including "Design Faults in the Volvo 760 Turbo", that were both included in Tough, Tough Toys.... -- Colapeninsula (talk) 16:15, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 00:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect and merge per Colapeninsula: Our article for Tough, Tough Toys for Tough, Tough Boys should include a sentence or two noting that two of its stories were earlier published in this special edition book. In addition, the story "Design Faults in the Volvo 760 Turbo: A Manual" receives direct critical commentary, which can be worked into the Tough, Tough Toys for Tough, Tough Boys article along with commentary about other stories in that collection. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:18, 9 July 2014 (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. j⚛e decker^talk 18:12, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IRulu

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

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

Renominating this as the last AfD was closed as no consensus. Please see the previous AfD for the nomination rationale (it's the same for this one). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Sources offered are, well, there are none. Googling turned up nothing helpful. Msnicki (talk) 15:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker^talk 14:34, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 00:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per the previous deletion rationale. Like Msnicki, I can find no reliable independent sourcing that would allow us to say anything about this product. If it were a notable brand, it should be fairly easy. Voceditenore (talk) 17:44, 17 July 2014 (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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:24, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Illegal Rare

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

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

Five month old series running in Shonen Jump. While the series may well become notable in the future, it's too early for an article. Series frequently get cancelled after only a few months, and in fact one series that started at the same time did just cancelled. A search for sources came up with lots of illegal hosting of scans (even trying to minimise them through keywords), but no evidence of notability through third party reliable sources beside an announcement. Article creator was informed of the need to provide evidence of notability but never replied or attempted to add any. Suggest moving to creators userspace for development. SephyTheThird (talk) 09:33, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --SephyTheThird (talk) 09:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 00:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete in that I don't see notability met via WP:GNG. No objection to userfication per nom. --j⚛e decker^talk 18:59, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Currently fails notability, it looks like a case of WP:TOOSOON. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:44, 9 July 2014 (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. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Polesworth F.C.

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

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

Does not pass WP:GNG or WP:FOOTYN as the team has not played at level 10 or in the FA Vase or FA Cup. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 00:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 00:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 00:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 00:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Another episode of my hard work been put up for deletion, makes all the hard work worthwhile doesn't it, exactly what constitutes an article, as I can name millions of semi-professional/amateur teams that have an article, so please explain why you want this one deleted!! Stew jones (talk) 18:34, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For one, there are no sources other than links to the official webpage and the club shop. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 00:22, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - its unfortunate that someone spent time creating something only for it to be deleted, but the shame is that someone spent time creating something that doesn't meet our inclusion criteria. I could create articles about each of the football teams in my local area but none of them would meet the inclusion criteria and so all of them would be deleted. Do the research, then the work. Don't do the work and then plead for mercy. The burden is on the creator to substantiate notability. While the nominator of an article for deletion should ideally justify that nomination, that has been done in this case. Over the the article's proponents to establish why this should stay. St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:13, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - does not pass WP:GNG and has not played at a sufficient sporting level. GiantSnowman 11:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per nom, fails WP:GNG JMHamo (talk) 11:43, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, with condolences to the creator. Continue the hard work, but best to learn the notability criteria first. TheBlueCanoe 12:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:FOOTYN as has not played in a national competition. no indication of GNG. Fenix down (talk) 15:13, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 9 July 2014 (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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:28, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Monopoli (band)

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

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

Unsourced article about a band. A search for sources turns up nothing. The group fails notability requirements. Diannaa (talk) 00:13, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom - Found no evidence of any notability, So Fails WP:GNG. –Davey2010 • (talk) 11:26, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 15:38, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Fight Magazine

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

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

I hate to do this, but, I'm fearing that this magazine might not pass WP:GNG let alone Wikipedia:Notability_(media)#Newspapers.2C_magazines_and_journals. Now, maybe it does pass #5 on that notability criteria - however, I'm struggling to find multiple reliable secondary sources that talk about the magazine outside of mere mentions regarding the a soap opera star coming out of the closet in the magazine.

Perhaps others disagree, and perhaps this will be kept, and that would be great, if it can be improved, but, my own exploration in improving it failed. :( SarahStierch (talk) 18:06, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, I admit it is tough to find secondary sources because of the generic/vague name of the magazine, simply, "The Fight", but sources do indeed turn up in searches for "the fight magazine" and/or "the fight" with LGBT in search parameters. Tough going research, however, this is the case indeed. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 17:05, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker^talk 00:12, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:39, 17 July 2014 (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.