Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 August 15

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 14 August	16 August >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:56, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Red Dead Redemption Outfits

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

WP:NOTGUIDE violation, see also WP:GAMETRIVIA. Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. Teancum (talk) 23:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the nominator and also cite WP:GAMEGUIDE and WP:GAMECRUFT. the same policies. Ubelowme _U ^Me 23:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – This type of detailed gaming information will probably never satisfy WP:GNG. It may belong somewhere in B:Computer Game Walkthroughs (hint). Regards, RJH (talk) 01:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Might be better off transwikied in a Gaming Wikia --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This just isn't what Wikipedia is for. There's no notability here, at least not enough for it to require its own article.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - GAMECRUFT/TRIVIA guidelines are pretty clear about including this kind of stuff in articles at all, let alone having a whole article dedicated to it... Sergecross73 msg me 13:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. 19:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. 19:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I politely informed the new Wikipedia user where they could post this information if it wasn't already there. http://reddead.wikia.com/wiki/Outfits Instead of just nominating things for deletion, and calling them "cruft", its best to explain things to people, and point them to where they can find a wiki that's right for them. Dream Focus 20:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification - For starters, it's a copy/paste from the Red Dead Wiki. I had already informed the user in the edit history when I PRODed the article, and the creator responded in a way that seemed he/she understood. I don't just drop the "cruft" tag, and also don't appreciate the accusation. --Teancum (talk) 14:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your nomination was fine. I should've said "instead of just saying delete and calling things cruft"... that is rude for a new user to have to endure. Its best to explain things properly on the talk page of the new user as I did. User_talk:The_conspiracy_theory#Red_Dead_Wiki Dream Focus 01:49, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Spurious fancruft p b p 17:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Loud (Half Japanese album)

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

This album article should be deleted (or eventually merged) because it fells Wikipedia:NMG#Albums. The album has no notability because it didn't chart at all or has a single that performed well on international charts. Additionally the article has no information about its background, recording, composition or reception. — Tomica (talk) 22:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 August 15. Snotbot t • c » 23:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. 19:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:UGLY. The album predates the internet era but was reviewed upon its release and has garnered press since. — AjaxSmack 02:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The album is sufficiently notable. The article should be kept and improved. --Michig (talk) 07:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per sources in the article; this topic passes WP:NALBUMS. A classic case of 'Afd is not cleanup'. Till 02:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. per G3 The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gustaf Hermawan

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

Not notable autobiography. No reliable sources listed. GregJackP Boomer! 23:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. 19:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. 19:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Reviews of the subject fulfill WP:GNG, and as several ediors noted, such sources were in the article at the time of nomination. (non-admin closure) I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 20:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hazard (2005 film)

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

The article appears to have been added as promotional material for a low-budget, non-notable film. A request for citations to prove notability has gone unanswered since 2008. JoshuSasori (talk) 23:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No seems to have RS and GNG with coverage in Asia Pacific Arts and the Japan Times. Lugnuts (talk) 06:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. 19:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. 19:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Definite Keep... In considering WP:NOEFFORT and WP:UGLY, the nominator's complaint that the article sat unsourced is a pretty weak deletion rationale when even a little WP:BEFORE shows sources toward the topic are available... and more, sources need NOT have been in the article for topic notability to exist. Heck... per WP:HANDLE and WP:ATD, he might even have improved it himself. Of course, now that this AFD has forced cleanup we can close this and move on. Kudos to User:Tokyogirl79 for showing the spirit that builds an encyclopdia.[1] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is a personal attack. JoshuSasori (talk) 06:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If you feel my pointing to WP:ATA or relevant policy is a personal attack, then by all means take this to WP:ANI. Cheers. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  No, I don't think your pointing to policies, or the use of the letter Q in your user name, or the fact that it's Saturday today, are personal attacks. However, I do in fact think that your snide remarks are a personal attack. I hope I have clarified this for you. If you have any more queries about what I might or might not think are personal attacks, then please feel free to ask. JoshuSasori (talk) 00:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  My point was that what was first nominated "had" minor issues that have proven easily addressable through regular editing. Topic notability was met through available sources even before being brought to AFD and article is now improved.[2] Can it be further improved? Sure. Does it require deletion because of addressable issues with style, format, or sourcing? Nope. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:50, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. After a quick search, I was able to find several reviews, especially this one. Clearly notable. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:57, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kbuuk

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

Non-Notable ebook publisher. Has a few links but they seem to be press releases and merely trivial coverage or mentions. Hu12 (talk) 22:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I did a search under just "Kbuuk" and was unable to find any in-depth coverage in reliable and secondary sources. Everything that I found were predominantly primary sources, nothing that would show notability. There's just no reason for this company to have an article, fails WP:CORP.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. 19:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. 19:11, 16 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promotional piece. LadyofShalott 03:48, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Tokyogirl79. The reliable third party sources just aren't there to support any notability for the company. It is a fairly new company, so its possible they may garner some attention in the future, but at this point, they do not meet the requirements of notability. Rorshacma (talk) 17:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:57, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Akono T'Challa

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

Non-notable fictional character. No indication of notability, lacks GHITS and GNEWS of substance. Possible hoax. reddogsix (talk) 20:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a hoax in the traditional sense, as it is clear that this is a "fanfiction based character". However, that doesn't make it any more notable. Zero independent coverage whatsoever. The article doesn't even bother to name the fanfiction this character appeared in, or provide a link to its location, in the unlikely case that the work or its author would have had sufficient notability for an article and thus a redirect (which I'm reasonably certain would not be the case). In short, there's no place for this here. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SO. This isn't exactly a hoax, but it's not actually a "real" character that would have notability. I wasn't really able to find the fanfiction that the character is supposed to be in, just a list of junk hits and things that come back to this AfD. Is there a category we could speedy this under?Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. 19:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. 19:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. gSearch fails to find any relevant hits whatsoever. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:26, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:57, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

God and Evil

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

Nonnotable book by a nonnotable "private scholar". WP:COI The page created by the book author. No independent evidence of notability. The two cited reviews are actualy the book foreword, and can hardly be treated as intependent. The page came to my attention when the author started his self-promotion in other wikipedia articles. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteCompletely non-notable book by non-notable self-promoting author. He has invested money in self publishing and sending almost everyone a copy. He may have gotten a friend to write a review but that does not make the book notable. We do not have an entry on every book that has ever been reviewed. --Jayrav (talk) 04:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. 19:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. 19:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. 19:04, 16 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Dave.Dunford (talk) 00:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability needs to be demonstrated. It hasn't. First Light (talk) 01:08, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dear editors, I work for David Birnbaum, therefore you see the author's name. I thought it would be wise to leave the name open for reviewers. There is nothing to hide. I'm working on improving and changing the language of the article. I spoke with many professors who actually read God and Evil, most of them are from philosophy and theology departments. The book was published by KTAV publishing. Before the Internet, most reviewers (mostly professors) sent their reviews via hard copy. I compiled these documents (http://summametaphysica.com/reviews/). I also noticed that David Birnbaum's reference in theodicy and privation were removed. I didn’t create these articles. The reference in theodicy led me to believe that submitting God and Evil is worthwhile. You have to investigate who added the references before deleting from the two important articles. I changed small letter to caps for God and Evil book title, but did not create. Some of the claims made here were not true. I personally received (to my attention) reviews by professors from various schools regarding Birnbaum's books. We worked on the book event bringing in some scientists and religious academic scholars to have a discussion on metaphysics. I have met some of these professors in-person. While I agreed to re-work on the article, I disagreed on some of the issue raised regarding the author. Thank you for your time. -on behalf of DavidBirnbaum (talk) 17:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 Dermatologic surgeon. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dermasurgeon

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

Article was a redirect to Dermatologic surgeon until User:DrDermatology converted it to article. Several reverts later, DrD insist the target is inappropriate and so the article. However the article as it stands is a dictionary definition and not an encyclopedic article.

I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason:

-- KTC (talk) 19:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Revert to the redirect and protect if necessary. The term is in use, as a google scholar search will indicate. However, there does not seem to be any substantive light between "dermasurgeon" and "dermatologic surgeon". Indeed, most of the references to the former term come from the pages of the journal Dermatologic Surgery (this for example). Some of the contention probably arises from the lack of an article at dermatologic surgery, which currently redirects to the parent dermatology (and so dermasurgery would as well, to avoid a double redirect). That's not ideal, but AFD isn't AFC. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. 19:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect both to Dermatologic surgeon, protect if necessary. I see from the history that User:DrDermatology insists that the terms are not equivalent - that "dermatologic surgeons" must be board certified in dermatology while "dermasurgeons come from many fields". However, I could find no verification of that distinction in a search - in fact the terms appear to be used interchangeably by those few people who do use the term - so the distinction appears to be original research. It also doesn't square with my experience, which is that physicians may call themselves a "dermatologic surgeon" regardless of whether or not they are board certified in dermatology. --MelanieN (talk) 19:20, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Black Kite (talk) 00:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Succubi in fiction

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

This article is just an exhaustive listing of everytime a succubus is mentioned in a work of fiction, with no analysis of the topic itself. The entire content is one large, mostly unsourced, triviafarm. While these statements may be appropriate in their own respective articles, clumping them all here is not. Cleaning out the inappropriate trivia to comply with WP:NOT (NOTDIR, IINFO) and WP:TRIVIA would render the article barren. Since there is so little to work with here in developing an encyclopedic article on the subject, and since the article has not been cleaned up or improved in the 5+ years since the last AfD, delete per WP:NOT and WP:TRIVIA. Them From Space 19:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Succubus, no merge.--Lenticel ^(talk) 02:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm undecided so far. There might actually be value in compiling a list of this nature and having a page about succubi in fiction, as such a list would probably be too long to include in the main succubi article. I do, however, agree that some of the listing of succubi in this article is a little tenuous at best. I'm going to look at this a little longer, but it might be better to rename this "list of succubi in fiction" and prune the list, providing better sourcing for what we have. (Although I do notice that at least everything in the article generally already has an article page to refer back to.)Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:20, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I find it hard to find detailed analysis of the demon in contemporary settings much less on modern fiction. Most of the richer sources of info mostly point to medieval lore. --Lenticel ^(talk) 03:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is our explicit policy that articles may start with a few facts and be built up from there. The topic is quite notable as it is easy to find entire books about it such as Our Ladies of Darkness: Feminine Daemonology in Male Gothic Fiction and Demon-Lovers and Their Victims in British Fiction. We are not here to develop this article right now because AFD is not cleanup. Warden (talk) 10:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem isn't the topic, but the content. Everything from "literature" on down is inappropriate trivia of this nature, passing mentions of minor characters and the like. Cleaning that up would leave an introductory sentence without any content. An encyclopedic article on this topic might well be possible, but that article would include none of this material. Them From Space 19:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Our policy is that "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." Warden (talk) 08:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. 19:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. 19:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to List of succubi in fiction and keep. I don't agree that this list is as hopeless as the nominator states. The list is almost entirely bluelinks, and while I am not sufficiently conversant with the gaming world to evaluate that section quickly, most of the items under "literature" and "film" appear to belong, so even if the crufty entries are appropriately deleted, the list will be too long to go back into the succubus article. The list appears valuable for navigating the topic, and I don't see how deleting it is going to improve the reader's understanding of how the succubus motif is used.--Arxiloxos (talk) 19:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and Keep per Arxiloxos. Its fairly common to have "XXX In Popular Culture" or other such articles and lists spin out of subjects like this. It could certainly use some cleanup work in some parts, but its a valid split from the main Succubus article, and too long to simply remerge. Rorshacma (talk) 19:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and Keep per the above two rationales. Aside from the obvious differences over what policy on such lists actually means, the nominator has failed to articulate why this article could not be improved through regular editing. Jclemens (talk) 20:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My strict belief is that if an article has no content of redeeming value, such as this, then it should be deleted. Even if there could be an encyclopedic article under the subject, if nothing under the current article belongs in the encyclopedic article, then remove the current schlock without prejudice to proper article in the future. Hopefully this will be enshrined within policy someday, but until then thank God we have WP:IAR. This article has not been improved in the 5+ years since the last AfD, which ended with a "keep and lets hope it will be cleaned up someday" type consensus. That hasn't yet happened and there's little chance that it will in the next 5 years without some incentive, which I had hoped this AfD would provide. But no, we're just going to willfully ignore this cruftfest and let it linger on as an embarrassment and a legitimate reason why we're mocked as an encyclopedia. I was once optimistic about this project, but discussions like this show that the project may not ever be regarded as a serious encyclopedia because much of the community doesn't want it to be! Them From Space 21:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Walmart. I will perform the merge. Wiki.Tango.Foxtrot is reminded that there is no Cabal. (non-admin closure) I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 20:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Walmart logos and trademarks

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

PROD contested. Wikipedia is not the place for mere photo galleries lacking encyclopedic context. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 18:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC) (name of article changed from List of Walmart logos to Walmart logos and trademarks during AFD nom. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 18:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Walmart. Not enough meat for a free-standing article, but certainly something worthy of inclusion there. Carrite (talk) 18:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, I was just about to file this same WP:AfD. This should be either on the same page as Walmart or off of Wikipedia. Toasty (talk) 18:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I really haven't been given much opportunity to expand this article, but I feel that with five corporate logos, it is too much and really unnecessary for all of them to be included in the main Walmart article. I also moved the page to Walmart logos and trademarks instead of a list article so as to be able to provide more information on other logos and trademarks used by the company, such as the smiley face logo, and other logos used by other product lines. WTF? (talk) 18:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are already two of the 5 logos on Walmart, would it really be that hard to include them all there? Take a look at the Pepsi page, all of the logos are included on the side of the page. Toasty (talk) 18:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Another idea would be to create a collapsible image gallery or a link to the images on Commons. In the least, I would recommend userfying the article, rather than drafting it in the mainspace at this point. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 18:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, with comments: The list is too short to warrant its own article, and doesn't offer any significant improvement over what's already in Walmart. (I proposed this article's deletion previously, for the same reason.)
- I'd also like to offer some counter-arguments to the reasons given by Wiki.Tango.Foxtrot (talk · contribs) when we discussed this earlier, in favour of keeping the list. One reason was that the article is too long; it is true that the Walmart article is long, but removing the images from it will not significantly decrease its size (instead, sub-sections could be split off into new pages, providing they are large enough to stand alone). I suggested that the logos could be placed in a collapsible table or image gallery.
- It was also stated that image galleries are not recommended per the WP:MOS; what I found there states that it is not advisable to include a large gallery on a page because it may contribute significantly to the page's download size (and thus rendering time, etc). Nothing would be changed in that respect by adding a gallery at the bottom of the page; instead, the images would remain there in a place where they wouldn't interrupt the flow of the text.
- The Google logo article was cited as an example of precedent for articles about the history of a company's visual identity. While I agree that there is sense in having the Google article, this page doesn't really add anything to what is in the Walmart article, from what I can see. If there was more background information of some sort, as there is with the Google article, it might be perfectly fine. As it stands, though, I think it's unnecessary. dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 21:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the Wikipedia Cabal is snowballing this, so I have merged and redirected the article in question. We can now close this discussion. WTF? (talk) 00:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the redirect. Please don't blank or redirect articles that are at AfD, and please assume good faith. Also: WP:TINC. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't understand why you reverted that. If everyone wants to merge this, I'm merely going allowing with the Cabal's prevailing "groupthink" by eliminating my opposition to it. So what's the problem? Now, you're creating a problem when I'm eliminating it. Sigh,. . . WTF? (talk) 04:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per dalahäst's comments. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (A7: no indications of notability) by NawlinWiki (talk · contribs)

Yours clothing

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

No indications of notability. Claims of being featured in various magazines are apparently based on the appearance of the brand's goods in various magazine layouts, but without any significant coverage of the brand. (See the company's own "Press Roundup".) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. 18:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. 18:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How can I improve the article then to make it suitable ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.89.150.81 (talk) 08:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Question has been answered at Talk:Yours clothing. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We Have a Voice

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

Orphaned article concerning a limited-timescale event of doubtful notability; few substantive edits since early in the article's lifetime and no apparent response to reported issues. Dave.Dunford (talk) 19:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Dave.Dunford (talk) 17:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Dave.Dunford (talk) 17:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 August 15. Snotbot t • c » 17:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability asserted or found, and I found nothing in the way of reliable sources -- not even locally. I live in BC and this apparently got little or no local attention. Ubelowme _U ^Me 18:10, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was unable to find any reliable sources to show that this student created collection of essays has any notability as far as Wikipedia goes. It seems to have gone the way of most student created anthologies, receiving no coverage from the press and quickly sinking into oblivion. This isn't a knock against it or its intentions, just that very very few student created projects ever receive anything beyond a mention in a local paper, if even that. Given that this was written back in 2005/2006 and it didn't get coverage back then, it's just very unlikely that it will receive enough in the future to warrant a keep. Heck, from what I can figure, this isn't even actually a book, but a collection of blogs [3]. Not that this is a knock against blogs or that they can't become notable, but there doesn't seem to be any actual hard copy of this blog and the blog itself hasn't been updated since 2006, which makes it even more unlikely that it'll get coverage at or beyond this point.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:37, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn/procedural close. See here for the merge proposal. --BDD (talk) 16:20, 16 August 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Liquid foundation

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

I think that this page should be Merged & Deleted to Foundation (cosmetics) because this page already discusses various Liquid foundations in-depth. Toasty (talk) 17:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. 17:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you only believe this article should be merged, Wikipedia:Proposed mergers is the appropriate procedure. Do you want it to be deleted? --BDD (talk) 22:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I should rephrase my original answer, I want it to be Merged and then Deleted, redirected was not the word I was looking for. I have edited my original posting. Toasty (talk) 12:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close per WP:SK1: nominator advocates a non-deletion procedure. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited my original posting. Sorry for the confusion. Toasty (talk) 12:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you don't think Liquid foundation should be kept as a redirect to Foundation (cosmetics)? That seems like a good navigational aid to me. Now, if you think coverage at Foundation (cosmetics) is sufficient and there's nothing to add from Liquid foundation, you could propose a delete and redirect. That's more AfD territory. --BDD (talk) 15:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close I would have to agree that this would be a better Merge & Redirect, I will start that procedure. Thanks. Toasty (talk) 15:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Brewer (cricketer)

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

Non-notable cricket adiministrator. To my eye he fails WP:GNG. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 17:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. 17:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. 17:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree that it's a rather minimalist article which could do with a lot of expansion, but anyone who's the "Secretary" (ie CEO) of the MCC is in my opinion notable - certainly far more so than some player who has played only one first-class match. There's a citation from the Daily Telegraph, and I'd expect it to be easy enough to find plenty more. About a minute's work on Google turned up this article from The Guardian. JH (talk page) 18:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Agree with JH. The article isn't in great shape, but he has significant coverage in independent reliable sources. In addition to the two sources in the article and the source JH points out, there is also this from the BBC. Also agree that Secretary of the MCC is probably an inherently notable position. P.S. – did he ever play cricket at a serious level? If not, I'd suggest moving the article to "cricket administrator". Jenks24 (talk) 02:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per JH above. Johnlp (talk) 14:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If kept it will certainly need to be changed to Derek Brewer (cricket administrator), as Brewer only played minor club cricket. Also the rather long list of external links and random categories will need sorting! Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 09:56, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn - per keeps. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 19:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:06, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Besharam (2013)

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

Unsourced future film failing WP:NFF, no evidence of notability. PROD was removed by original editor, without comment. PamD 17:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. 17:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. 17:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet WP:NFF. As always, no prejudice to recreation if and when the film is released. Ubelowme _U ^Me 18:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NFF. Torreslfchero (talk) 18:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for the reasons I gave when I PROD'd it. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 21:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the article clearly fails WP:V and WP:NFF. Though the poster appears to have released, it is insufficient to deduce the film's notability and article content. Secret of success (talk) 15:12, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that WP:HEY, it's worth keeping. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Genesis 1:4

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

A single verse in the bible, already covered in Genesis creation narrative, Bereshit, and elsewhere. Its content is limited to translations (which are already listed on other WM projects, making it a close candidate for db-transwiki). The community has largely spoken elsewhere that some verses are appropriate (such as John 3:16 and Genesis 1:1), but not every verse, and not those without extensive commentary which can't be fit on another, larger page. This article clearly fits that criteria, as it has no content and is already covered elsewhere. — Jess· Δ ♥ 16:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. 17:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. 17:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete [edit: without prejudice to re-creation if someone chooses to add actual content] per nom. I am also surprised that Genesis 1:3/Let there be light are not better articles, but suspect that these may be more easily expanded. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep after improvement with secondary commentary. Yay! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Genesis 1:3 can probably be redirected to Let there be light. The latter article should almost certainly exist (although it is in need of work and expansion), but the former probably should not in light of more appropriate targets. I'll wait until this AfD concludes to do that. — Jess· Δ ♥ 18:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Conservapedia is thattaway... ---> Carrite (talk) 18:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per outcomes at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genesis 1:2 (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genesis 1:1 (2nd nomination), and prior consensus at Wikipedia:Bible verses/2010. There is, in fact, no consensus that I'm aware of that any sacred writings of whatever religion are inherently non-notable. While translations could be covered in Wikisource, major world religions have numerous RS commentaries that go verse-by-verse through their entirety. Additionally, the above nomination does not articulate any issue with this particular verse that cannot be fixed through regular editing. Likewise, coverage of a supertopic does not preclude coverage of notable subtopics. Jclemens (talk) 19:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any of the "sacred writings"? Really? So we should have individual articles on each individual word in the entire bible? After all there is plenty of writing on many individual words. Of course, that would be absolutely ridiculous. If we covered that at all, we'd combine it into one larger article relating to the passage, the section, or the work overall. So to with the verses. You appear to be supportive of an article for each and every verse in the bible. That's millions of articles, just to cover what we already do in Bible (and subarticles: Book of Genesis, Bereshit, Noah's Ark, etc). I don't know how we could possibly justify that, particularly in light of the fact that the sole content here just about qualifies for db-transwiki, given that it's unsourced, lacking commentary, and entirely listed translations. How is that encyclopedic? — Jess· Δ ♥ 14:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you actually read Wikipedia:Bible verses/2010? My position is unchanged since then: each verse--or equivalent in other writings--that has RS coverage is eligible for a separate article per the GNG. Not just Christian or Jewish writings, but any sacred text that's attracted any commentary, whether devotional, theologic, or academic. Judeochristian writings have better coverage as of now, but yes, this can and ultimately should be expanded to every major religious source document to the level that individual verses (or other smallest elements) receive appropriate RS commentary. Jclemens (talk) 00:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming I grant that each verse should be covered in detail, how does keeping an article which nearly meets a speedy deletion criteria benefit us in any way? This article has no sources and no content (except for content explicitly excluded from WP per policy). Furthermore, even if that wasn't the case, and the article had a basic amount of detail, then what benefit is served by keeping this article and not merging with a parent, like Genesis creation narrative, Book of Genesis, Bereshit, Let there be light, etc... where this material is already covered?

I've quite obviously read the previous discussions on this matter. The one you quote from 2 years ago was short and poorly represented, even still with diverse opinions. You say your opinion hasn't changed since then, which I would sum up with your first comment: Bare (non-copyrighted) religious texts belong at Wikisource, encyclopedic discussion of such texts using RS'es belongs at Wikipedia. I agree. There is no encyclopedic discussion or commentary in this article, nor anything drawn from RSes, only bare translations, and so it belongs on another project, not here. — Jess· Δ ♥ 05:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Continued expansion of individual extended verse commentary articles in this way, verse by verse, is an explosive cross-religion disaster in the making. Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 17:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the article on Genesis. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 23:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because Genesis 1:1-5 (i.e. the first five verses of the Book of Genesis) are one logical set that contains the details of the First Day of creation according to the Bible, that would make them a key axiom and foundation for everything else that follows in the Bible. That is why thus far multiple AfDs to do away with the first 2 verses' articles have failed, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genesis 1:1 (2nd nomination) & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genesis 1:2 (2nd nomination) and why this article as well as the two others about Genesis 1:3 and Genesis 1:5 are to be kept as a complete coherent set since it makes no sense that there are articles for the first two verses of Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 describing the First Day of Creation (i.e. the most important event when everything begins according to Judeo-Christian civilization), and not for the three others that are part of one set. No one imagines that a famous paragraph consisting of five sentences (the Bible's opening paragraph) should only cite two sentences, as that would make no sense even in human terms. Thus these are both WP:N and there are plenty of WP:RS to back them up as they could obviously be developed even more. IZAK (talk) 23:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If these 5 verses are one unit which is notable, then there should be a single article on that unit. We shouldn't have individual articles on the pieces of the unit, particularly when we have no actual content with which to flesh them out past a speedy deletion criteria. We already have Book of Genesis and Genesis creation narrative, as well as Bereshit and the parshas, as well as the Islamic articles, as well as other individual sections (like Let there be light)... all devoted to just this content. Those should be sufficient to cover any material which is notable from this verse. Why do we need a separate article to do that? Why not a separate article for each word? — Jess· Δ ♥ 14:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because Bible verses are notable in and of themselves, and have been cited extensively for millennia on their own and carry their own weight, while words alone are not as significant although they can be, as even letters can be crucial since the Bible is originally written in Hebrew using the Hebrew alphabet as its building blocks (it all depends how deep you want to study it). In addition, it make no sense to only cite verses 1 and 2 that speak of creation and "darkness" and skip out on verses 3 to 5 that continue with "light" and hence the creation of day (i.e. the Earthly embodiment of "light") and night (i.e. the Earthly embodiment of "darkness"). IZAK (talk) 18:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, based on the extensive literature discussing allegorical interpretations specifically of this verse, both Jewish (e.g. the Zohar) and Christian (e.g. Augustine: "a separation was made between the holy and the unclean angels"). There's a quite substantial article to be written here. The article should also summarise the extensive range of artwork on the subject, e.g. Separation of Light from Darkness. -- 202.124.75.177 (talk) 01:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per IZAK. Philosophers and Theologians from both the Christian and Jewish traditions have commented extensively verse by verse on the Pentateuch. --Guerillero | My Talk 04:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: So do you plan on building wiki articles for every verse in the Pentateuch then? Have fun with that. — Jasonasosa 18:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I too question the rationale of further creation and listing of "every verse" in a topic/subject in scriptural text of any origin. More of a road to an eventual disaster than anything else. Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 17:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Specifically notable due to the extensive commentary on this specific verse.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per IZAK.--Yoavd (talk) 11:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I note with concern that user Jasonasosa is attempting to circumvent the ongoing AfD discussion by redirecting the page -- I was going to spend some time improving the article, but that's now impossible. -- 202.124.74.141 (talk) 11:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The page contains very little commentary, and even that reads like obvious WP:OR. It would be possible to create an article, but this is not it. I cannot even see any point keeping the page history behind a redirect. I voted to keep Genesis 1:2 after it was expanded, but unless Genesis 1:4 is improved shortly then it should go. – Fayenatic London 12:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Poor writing is not a reason for deletion. This article clearly passes our general notability guideline, as a simple Google Books search demonstrates. If the article cannot currently stand on its own, it should be redirected to Genesis creation narrative. There is no added benefit to getting rid of the page history. Neelix (talk) 15:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with redirection. In fact, I initially made this a redirect, but it was reverted by IZAK who believes the article should be kept (not as a redirect). That is what precipitated this AfD. Given the current state of the article, I assume redirection (thus, deletion of the article content) would be preferable to you? There's no reason we need to get rid of the history to do that. — Jess· Δ ♥ 16:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An IP editor has extended the article to an extent that redirection is no longer an option, and merging would not be preferable. The article should be kept as is and expanded. Neelix (talk) 12:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Genesis creation narrative. Thanks, — Jasonasosa 15:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Let there be light, the article which talks about the content of this verse (and Genesis 1:3, the specific source of that phrase, which should also redirect there). In general, I don't think that independent articles on each Bible verse are warranted. Yes, there are certainly sources which focus attention on each in turn, but that does not necessitate that each receives an article any more than detailed analyses of Shakespeare suggest that we should have articles for each individual act of his plays. In this case, however, the content of the verse is well known (much more so that chapter-and-verse number, unlike, say, John 3:16), and so WP:COMMONNAME suggests that's where we should host the content. Not coincidentally, the article there is, while still in dire need of improvement, better than what this AFD is looking at now. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per IZAK, Jclemens, et al. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 17:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. An expansion of the article renders several of the content-based "delete" or "redirect" arguments invalid. The nomination reasons are now also invalid, since the content in this article is not covered elsewhere. -- 202.124.75.231 (talk) 00:10, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The article now provides a substantial commentary on the verse. As I write the content of Genesis 1:5 is inadequate to warrant retaining that one (unless expanded substantially). Peterkingiron (talk) 20:17, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Change opinion to keep after recent substantial improvement. – Fayenatic London 13:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Same as with the other verse titled articles: This is not forum for an extended commentary and cross-comparision on every scriptural verse in the Bible, Koran, Talmud, Rig Veda, Upanishad, etc, etc. this is where this leads. This should primarily be kept (as much as possible) to topics and subjects not a continuous or consecutive list of verses of scripture with separate articles. I am sure there is a Bible Wiki out there somewhere for that. Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 16:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of this verse article expansion or improvement, the editors should find a way to consolidate the significant information into topical articles. All notable verses have articles or have been addressed in subject headed articles. Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 18:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw opinion: I withdraw my opinions regarding the further creation and expansion of individual verse expanded article listings. Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 19:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arye Tzvi Frommer

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

Article about a rabbi who does not seem to meet WP:GNG. Article is completely unreferenced. No mentions of him on GNews/GScholar or general Google other than this article. Nothing evident on GBooks. Perhaps there are sources available the I cannot see, but I cannot see them. BenTels (talk) 15:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. 17:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. 17:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 17:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:DONOTDEMOLISH ~~as it's only a stub at this point and I have added {{rabbi-stub}} to it.~~ The man is notable being that he was a rosh yeshiva (a very rare and prestigious position and honor in the world of Torah Judaism) and there will be more citations forthcoming. IZAK (talk) 00:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: The article has been improved and it's no longer a stub, and now fulfills all the requirements of WP:N, WP:RS and WP:V. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 17:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's actually somewhat well known, it's just not that evident from the article (which yes, needs both expansion and citations). The spelling of his name here is not the most common spelling I find when I do google searches. If you want to see proof of more sources, אריה פרומר (his hebrew name - 61 books),aryeh tzvi fromer (3 books), aryeh tzvi frumer (4 books), aryeh zvi frumer (5 books). A few other assorted spellings reveals a small number of other citations. I won't bother to dig though every possible iteration, and there's obviously overlap, but the point is he's been cited in 70 or so books. He also written at least 2 books, and his commentaries were assembled into a modern passover hagaddah. --Bachrach44 (talk) 07:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdraw: Ah, a transliteration problem. That explains quite a lot. On the strength of Bachrach44's comments, I hereby withdraw the deletion nomination. However, I do suggest that the article be renamed to a more common transliteration of rabbi Frommer/Fromer/Frumer/?s name. Perhaps Bachrach44 can advise on which would be the best choice here? -- BenTels (talk) 11:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Uyghur detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Seems pretty clear that this is a textbook BLP1E situation. No one is saying that Wikipedia should not contain any information on Parhat, just that he doesn't need his own standalone article. -Scottywong | spout _ 16:27, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hozaifa Parhat

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

On a living prisoner from Guantanamo Fails WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:BIO. There are no secondary sources or independent coverage to claim notability of the subject. The citation used merely take the name. Moreover they are WP:PRIMARY source (WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 84#Reliability of US military summary reports) DBig Xray 15:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. 17:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. 17:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 17:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep -- This nomination is highly misleading. Parhat had an unique ruling made by DC court of appeals made in his DTA appeal, on 2008-06-20. Many reliable sources have commented on what that ruling said about him. Geo Swan (talk) 14:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Joe Palazzolo (2008-07-07). "DOJ Seeks Lawyers for Guantanamo Cases: Justice says 50 needed to deal with 250 habeas cases". Legal Times. Archived from the original on 2012-08-16. While the Detainee Treatment Act cases run separate to the habeas cases, detainee lawyers say the Parhat ruling cast doubt on the authority of hundreds of intelligence documents and records the government has held up as proof of detainees' threat.
- John Patashnik (2008-07-03). "The TNR Conversation: Benjamin Wittes and Andrew C. McCarthy". The New Republic. Archived from the original on 2012-08-16. Retrieved 2012-08-16. I want to get your reactions to this week's decision from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in the Parhat case. The court rejected the administration's rationale for detaining Mr. Parhat, who is a Uighur, a Chinese Muslim, at Guantánamo, finding no evidence that would qualify him as an enemy combatant.
- Josh Meyer (2008-06-24). "Court rules in favor of detainee: The Guantanamo inmate is ordered to be freed, transferred or given a new hearing, in a new setback for the Bush administration". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2012-08-16. Retrieved 2012-08-16. A lawyer for Huzaifa Parhat, who has been kept virtually incommunicado for more than six years, said he and other members of Parhat's legal team would seek to have him freed immediately. Parhat is one of 17 Uighur Muslims, an ethnic minority in China, who are still being held at Guantanamo even though the U.S. government acknowledges they pose no threat.
- Seema Saifee (2008-03-31). "East Turkestan: Uyghurs Unlawfully Arrested and Detained". Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization. Archived from the original on 2012-08-16. Retrieved 2012-08-16. But lawyers for the Uighur 17 will never give up. Oral argument is scheduled for April 4 [2008] in another Uighur case Parhat v. Gates, an action filed in the D.C. Circuit pursuant to the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 ("DTA"). In the first ever dispositive motion to be heard in a DTA case, the Court will consider whether – as a matter of law – Huzaifa Parhat is a non-combatant and should therefore be immediately released.
- Andy Worthington (2009-02-19). "Obama's Uighur Problem". Counterpunch magazine. Archived from the original on 2012-08-16. Retrieved 2012-08-16. Ignored for years, they gained an unexpected reprieve last June, when three judges in the Court of Appeals in Washington — noticeably, two Republicans and a Democrat — were finally granted an opportunity to review the government's evidence against Huzaifa Parhat, one of the 17, and decided that the government's attempts to link him to the East Turkestan Independence Movement were thoroughly unpersuasive. As a result, they "held invalid a decision of a Combatant Status Review Tribunal" that Parhat was an "enemy combatant," and "directed the government to release or transfer" him (or to hold a new tribunal "consistent with the Court's opinion").
- Jonathan Hafetz (2007-07-27). "Modest Improvements Cannot Save an Inherently Flawed Process at Guantánamo". Findlaw. Archived from the original on 2012-08-16. Retrieved 2012-08-16. The government claimed that the DTA sharply curtailed judicial review over detention decisions, and justified imposition of severe restrictions on counsel's access to detainees and information in the government's possession. However, the detainees in Bismullah (and the consolidated case of Parhat v. Gates) countered that the government misconstrued the statute and sought to render its review scheme a nullity.
- But are these anything more than passing mentions? I don't see extensive coverage - just that he is mentioined in passing... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Uyghur detainees at Guantanamo Bay. That subject is very notable and article-worthy, and the articles on the detainees themselves can be merged and redirected into it, as individually they do not meet the bar for notability to have individual articles that would, by necessity, essentially duplicate the information in the article about the group, as they have done nothing else notable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. From what Geo Swan has highlighted, it seems that the issue he wishes to highlight is what the ruling meant for the legality of the arrangements prisoners were being held under. This should be covered in the appropriate article on these arrangements, rather than an article on an otherwise non-notable person. Nick-D (talk) 10:02, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - insufficient coverage to be notable under WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 05:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Uyghur detainees at Guantanamo Bay per WP:R#HARMFUL and WP:R#KEEP.--Joshuaism (talk) 20:07, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect to Uyghur detainees at Guantanamo Bay. In news and book searches found multiple passing mentions of the subject but none that would be considered significant coverage as per WP:GNG. Fails WP:ANYBIO & WP:SOLDIER. That being said the subject falls under a notable group, a redirect can be left in the articlespace and its verified content can be merged within that target article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Excuse me, but what elements of "significant coverage" do you think are missing? Geo Swan (talk) 01:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Brendan M. Driscoll (2006). "The Guantanamo Protective Order". Fordham University Law Journal. p. 26-27, 39-47, 57-61. Retrieved 2012-08-21. There is considerable debate about the appropriateness of the Green Protective Order. This debate is most vigorously presented in the arguments submitted by the parties in the pending cases Bismullah v. Rumsfeld and Parhat v. Gates, brought pursuant to the DTA."' In these cases, the question of the whether the Green Protective Order should be put in place is currently being litigated."
- Jason S. Pinney (2009). "The Uighurs AT Guantánamo : "SOMETIMES WE JUST DIDN'T GET THE RIGHT FOLKS"" (PDF). Northeastern University Law Journal. pp. 13–14. Retrieved 2012-08-21. We won. In June of 2008, the Parhat court rejected the Government's enemy combatant determination and ordered that Parhat be released, transferred, or that a new CSRT be convened. The Government waived its right to subject Parhat to a second CSRT, and accepted the court's non-enemy combatant determination. The only question remaining was release.
- Stephen I. Vladeck (2009-03-01). "The Long War, the Federal Courts, and the Necessity / Legality Paradox". American University Washington College of Law. p. 18. Retrieved 2012-08-21. But perhaps they were just the courts taking the last in a series of incremental steps: Rasul provided that the federal courts had jurisdiction; Boumediene provided that Congress could not take that jurisdiction away; Parhat provided that the Uighurs were not properly classified as "enemy combatants"; and the district court's decision in In re Guantanamo Bay Detainee Litigation suggested that the appropriate remedy, if the government could not legally transfer the detainees to any other country, was release.
- Jennifer Daskal, Joanne Mariner (2008). "Locked Up Alone: Detention Conditions and Mental Health at Guantanamo". Human Rights Watch. p. 1, 12, 17, 28. Retrieved 2012-08-21. In April, Huzaifa Parhat, another Uighur who was reportedly determined eligible for release over four years ago, described his daily routine to his lawyer, who wrote:
  Wake at 4:30 or 5:00. Pray. Go back to sleep. Walk in circles -- north, south, east, west -- around his 6-by-12 foot cell for an hour. Go back to sleep for another two or more hours. Wake up and read the Koran or look at a magazine (written in a language he does not understand). Pray. Walk in circles once more. Eat lunch. Pray. Walk in circles. Pray. Walk in circles or look at a magazine (again, in a foreign language). Go back to sleep at 10:00 p.m.
  The next day is the same except that the detainee may leave his cell for two hours of recreation in a slightly larger pen or for a shower.
- Ernesto A. Hernandez-Lopez (July 2011). "Kiyemba, Guantanamo, and Immigration Law: An Extraterritorial Constitution in a Plenary Power World". Chapman University School of Law. p. 20. Retrieved 2012-08-21. The precise nature of the location of these camps, how long the Uighurs were there, and what training they received, if any, remains debated in legal pleadings and orders. This information is invariably under government seal as confidential. Yet, the executive concedes that all of the Uighur detainees are not unlawful enemy combatants and that the Parhat holding applies to all of them. See In re Guantánamo Bay Detainee Litig., 581 F. Supp. 2d 33, 35 (D.D.C. 2008). For the most developed discussion of their reasons for leaving China, stay and training at a Uighur camp in Afghanistan, flight from Afghanistan after the U.S. military campaign in October 2008, and capture in Pakistan in December 2008, see Parhat v. Gates, 532 F.3d 834, 837–38, 843–44 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
- Sabin Willett (2009). "Clericalism and the Guantánamo Litigation" (PDF). Northeastern University Law Journal. pp. 23–25, 30–32, 44, 45. Retrieved 2012-08-21. Early in January 2009, the author visited Guantánamo. For a fleeting moment he stood across a fence from two men famous in American jurisprudence, the Bosnian Lakhdar Boumediene and the Uighur Huzaifa Parhat. Each had been adjudicated a noncombatant. Each was still a prisoner.
- Jennifer K. Elsea, Michael John Garcia (2011-12-08). "Detainee Provisions in the National Defense Authorization Bills" (PDF). Congressional Research Service. p. 11m 19. Retrieved 2012-08-21. If the definition asserted by the government in Parhat is adopted, then the term would seem to require a close operational nexus in the current armed conflict. On the other hand, as the court noted, "[t]his argument suggests that, even under the government's own definition, the evidence must establish a connection between ETIM and al Qaida or the Taliban that is considerably closer than the relationship suggested by the usual meaning of the word 'associated.'" The court did not find that the evidence adduced established that ETIM is sufficiently connected to Al Qaeda to be an "associated force," as the government had defined the concept, but the decision might have come out differently if the court had adopted a plain-language interpretation of "associated force."
- Stephen Holmes (April 2009). "In Case of Emergency: Misunderstanding Tradeoffs in the War on Terror" (PDF). California Law Review. p. 37. Retrieved 2012-08-21. Evidence suggesting that gullible executive-branch officials were fed deliberate disinformation by Chinese intelligence led a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to overturn the Pentagon's determination that a member of the Uighur minority from western China was properly held as an enemy combatant.
- Joseph Landau (2009). "MUSCULAR PROCEDURE: CONDITIONAL DEFERENCE IN THE EXECUTIVE DETENTION CASES" (PDF). Washington Law Review. p. 21-22, 27, 31, 35. Retrieved 2012-08-21. Parhat focused on the underlying reliability of the government's evidence, which the court refused to credit, even under a relatively light standard of review.
- Margaret Wichmann (2009). "REACHING BEYOND GUANTÁNAMO: THE FUTURE OF COUNTER-TERRORISM LAW IN THE UNITED STATES". California State Law Review. p. 9. Retrieved 2012-08-21. In Parhat v. Gates, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the Combatant Status Review Tribunal's decision that Huzaifa Parhat was an "enemy combatant".90 The court found that Parhat's designation as an enemy combatant was not valid because it was not based on evidence that could be reviewed by both the Tribunal and the court.
- Benjamin Wittes, Robert Chesney & Rabea Benhalim (2010-01-22). "The Emerging Law of Detention: The Guantánamo Habeas Cases as Lawmaking" (PDF). Brookings Institute. p. 12-13, 39-40, 80. Retrieved 2012-08-21. The panel emphasized that it was not suggesting "that hearsay evidence is never reliable—only that it must be presented in a form, or with sufficient additional information, that permits the Tribunal and court to assess its reliability."

</ref>

- Carl Quimby Christol (2009). The American Challenge: Terrorists, Detainees, Treaties, and Torture-Responses to the Rule of Law, 2001-2008. University Press of America. p. 162, 186–187. ISBN 9780761843443. Retrieved 2012-08-21.
- Shirley A. Khan (2009). U. S. -China Counterterrorism Cooperation: Issues for U. S. Policy. DIANE Publishing. pp. 13–15. ISBN 9781437919363. Retrieved 2012-08-21.
- Shirley A. Kan (2010-01-06). "U.S.-China Counterterrorism Cooperation: Issues for U.S. Policy" (PDF). Congressional Research Service. pp. 11, 20, 22. Retrieved 2012-08-21. There is some corroboration about their names. Hozaifa Parhat, one of the 22 Uighurs who were in Afghanistan until late 2001 then ended up at Guantanamo by 2002 and whose name was placed in the landmark court case on whether to release them, readily told his Combatant Status Review Tribunal between 2004 and 2005 that he saw Mahsum who was the leader at the Uighur camp in Afghanistan. Parhat and some other Uighur detainees also said that they heard of Abdul Haq.
- Anthony Lewis (2008-09-25). "Official American Sadism" (PDF). New York Times Review of Books. Retrieved 2012-08-21. A striking example of the importance of having courts check official decisions that someone is an "enemy combatant" is the case of Huzaifa Parhat, one of a number of Uighur Muslims from China who are in Guantánamo. Parhat, who the US military claimed was at a Uighur training camp in Afghanistan in 2001, was captured in Pakistan in the fall of 2001. A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found in June that there was no persuasive evidence to support the government's labeling of him as an enemy combatant. The panel included the court's chief judge, David Sentelle, one of the most conservative federal judges in the country. Its opinion ridiculed the government argument, comparing it to the statement of a Lewis Carroll character: "I have said it thrice: What I tell you three times is true."
- Austin Sarat, ed. (2010). "Sovereignty, Emergency, Legality". Cambridge University Press. p. 40. ISBN 9780521112239. Retrieved 2012-08-21. Given the time -- a period of three years after 9/11 in which there had been no attack on the United States -- and the firm sense that the conflict would be indefinite, the latter option was, from the perspective of a commitment to legality, by far the the better choice. Congress would have been required to devise a comprehensive regime for arrest and detention and probably, given the inevitability of some criminal trials, for prosecution as well. Because that did not happen, CSRTs are operating without any legislative authorization, are not according to recent lower court decisions following their own procedures and the procedures themselves are under increasing critique (a problem at which the Supreme Court could only vaguely gesture.)
- Matthew Waxman (2008-11-21). "pAdministrative Detention of Terrorists: Why Detain, and Detain Whom?". Columbia Law School. p. 10. Retrieved 2012-08-21. In one oft-cited litigation colloquy, the government went so far as to argue that merely providing a charitable gift could qualify the so-called "little old lady in Switzerland" donor as an "enemy combatant" if the recipient turned out to be an al Qaeda front. Even having backed off this most extreme view,28 however, the government has steadfastly avoided detailed public discussion of what it means to be a "member", how it defines "al Qaida" or its affiliates and supporters, and what activities constitute belligerency or support or aid to any of these groups or activities.
- Colleen Costello (2009). "Challenging the Practice of Transfer to Torture in U.S. Courts: A model brief for petitioners" (PDF). Northest University Law Journal. Retrieved 2012-08-21. There is a strong that even for those detainees still considered to beargument "enemy combatants," whether or not they have been cleared for release or transfer, their "enemy combatant" status determination is not conclusive. This argument is supported by the Supreme Court's ruling in Boumediene and subsequent review by the lower courts, at least one of which has found the "enemy combatant" determinations to be based on insufficient evidence.
- Edward F. Mickolus, Susan L. Simmons (2011). "The Terrorist List". ABC-CLIO. p. 189. ISBN 9780313374722. Retrieved 2012-08-21.
- J. Todd Reed, Diana Raschke (2010). "The Etim: China's Islamic Militants and the Global Terrorist Threat". ABC-CLIO. p. 174. ISBN 9780313365409. Retrieved 2012-08-21.
- Jonathan Hafetz (2011). "Habeas Corpus after 9/11: Confronting America's New Global Detention System". NYU Press. p. 37. ISBN 9780814737033. Retrieved 2012-08-21.
- "Exploring the nature of Uighur nationalism: freedom fighters or terrorists? : hearing before the Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights, and Oversight of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of Representatives, One Hundred Eleventh Congress, first session, June 16, 2009". U.S. G.P.O. 2009-06-16. p. 64, 70–71. Retrieved 2012-08-21.
- Michael Edmund Clarke (2007). "China's 'war on terror' in Xinjiang: human security and the causes of violent Uighur separatism". Griffith Asia Institute. p. 21. Retrieved 2012-08-21.
Note to closing administrator -- {{afd}} is not a vote, as I understand it, you have the authority to discount arguments that are inaccurate, or are counter-policy. Hofaiza Parhat is one of the most significant Guantanamo captives due to the significant ruling in his DTA appeal. Nominator claimed there were no secondary sources that supported his notability. Wrong. Several books and and scholarly articles devoted page after page to the ruling. In doing so they provided plenty of biographical details about the man himself.
Two of the contributors above assert that the references to Parhat are only "passing mentions". That is true for some but by no means all of these references. However, even if, for the sake of argument, all the references for some topic each only touched on that topic in a single paragraph, but each of those single paragraphs covered a different aspect of the topic, added together they would add up to the coverage in depth we expect in an article.
WP:LOCALCONSENSUS essay warns that instances occur when a small subsection of the project's community chime in, and give the appearance of a consensus, that would not be endorsed by the wider community. I suggest the apparent consensus here is an instance of that phenomenon. Geo Swan (talk) 12:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Uyghur detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bahtiyar Mahnut

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

On a living (now released) prisoner from Guantanamo Fails WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:BIO. There are no secondary sources or independent coverage to claim notability of the subject. The citation used merely take the name. Moreover they are WP:PRIMARY source (WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 84#Reliability of US military summary reports) DBig Xray 15:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. 17:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. 17:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 17:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & redirect, did not find multiple significant coverage of individual in any reliable source, however as a member of a notable group the article space can be replaced with a redirect to Uyghur detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Found this article from the Weekly Standard, however the article is primarily about a person by the name of "Abdul Haq" (who is not this person). However, it can be argued that this article from MSNBC could be considered significant; but does one article from MSNBC enough to establish notability, that is up to debate.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - subject is not notable as it lacks "significant coverage" in reliable sources per WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 05:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Uyghur detainees at Guantanamo Bay per WP:R#HARMFUL and WP:R#KEEP.--Joshuaism (talk) 20:09, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary coverage + WP:BLP = Delete. First Light (talk) 01:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Uyghur detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Mohamed (Guantanamo Bay detainee)

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

On a living prisoner from Guantanamo Fails WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:BIO. There are no secondary sources or independent coverage to claim notability of the subject. The citation used not even take the name of the subject WP:BOMBARD. Moreover they are WP:PRIMARY source (WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 84#Reliability of US military summary reports) DBig Xray 15:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. 17:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. 17:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 17:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable due to lack of "signficant coverage" in reliable sources per WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 05:51, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Uyghur detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Subject does not appear to be notable outside of the events surrounding the subjects detention, thus this BLP article falls under WP:BLP1E. As a member of a notable group a redirect can be left in the article space. Additionaly, it appears that the article is out of date, due to the recent release of the subject; see this article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Uyghur detainees at Guantanamo Bay per WP:R#HARMFUL and WP:R#KEEP.--Joshuaism (talk) 20:10, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. First Light (talk) 01:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Uyghur detainees at Guantanamo Bay. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:57, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Akhdar Qasem Basit

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

On a living (now released) prisoner from Guantanamo Fails WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:BIO. There are no secondary sources or independent coverage to claim notability of the subject. The citation used merely take the name. Moreover they are WP:PRIMARY source (WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 84#Reliability of US military summary reports) DBig Xray 15:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. 17:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. 17:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 17:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - subject lacks "significant coverage" in reliable sources as is therefore not notable under WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 05:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect to Uyghur detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Subject does not appear to have received significant coverage per WP:GNG, and fails WP:ANYBIO & WP:SOLDIER. The closest thing I can find to significant coverage is this article written in the San Diego Union Tribune, however the subject of this BLP is not the primary subject of the RS. As the subject is a member of a notable group, what verified content exists can be summarized and merged into the article regarding that group.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:17, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Uyghur detainees at Guantanamo Bay per WP:R#HARMFUL and WP:R#KEEP.--Joshuaism (talk) 20:11, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I am not challenging whether our nominator made this nomination in good faith, but I suggest anyone reading the article will recognize the nomination illustrates the nominator has serious misunderstandings of our policies, guidelines and conventions. For instance the nominator claims the sources are PRIMARY sources. We don't consider newspaper articles, like this one, PRIMARY sources. Geo Swan (talk) 23:15, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & redirect to Uyghur detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Significant coverage not established, does not meet notability standards for a standalone article, especially when there is a suitable list in which to WP:PRESERVE the content. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge with Uyghur detainees at Guantanamo Bay. The subject is more notable as one person in a group than by himself. A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 09:08, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 00:22, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KernelEx

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

Speedy contested with a suggestion to bring this to AfD, which is what I'm doing here. Software with no assertion of notability. Of the three sources used in the article, two are primary sources, and the third one is an entry on a blog. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 14:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is on cs-wiki. Googling with exclusion of sourceforge results gives 47 300 records. Keep. Nikos 1993 (talk) 15:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Loads of specialty forum chatter around KernelEx, but no apparent coverage in reliable sources. Number of Google hits is not an argument for notability. Personally, I'd vote keep with even a tiny bit of coverage in reliable sources, given the heavy forum chatter, but in lieu of that I don't think there's really any valid alternative to deletion. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 15:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's just an improvement made by enthusiasts to OSs which are now unsupported by Microsoft, so it's hard to find sources in professional publications, but it works. YouTube has proofs of working programs. Nikos 1993 (talk) 15:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- While "it's hard to find sources in professional publications" is usually a valid argument for deletion if you look at the numerous precedents here, and remains one until such sources are found, "it works" is almost never taken into account in deletion discussions, even if you can prove it beyond reasonable doubt. Spectacular failures have a better chance of surviving than minor success stories. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 21:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. 17:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no significant coverage in reliable sources and no proof of historical significance (not so surprising, given that the project was nearly obsolete since its inception in March 2009). The chance that it will ever gain some notice is only decreasing. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:11, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What about enthusiasts of retrocomputing? Nikos 1993 (talk) 14:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merging the subject article there would be a good solution, but reliable sources are required for that too. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I personally think this is a case where I would apply "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it". Nikos 1993 (talk) 15:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - You can't IAR away the requirement for reliable sources to ensure verifiability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficent reliable sources, as Ginsengbomb points out, for this to be kept or merged. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Pickford

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

I actually think this article would normally warrant a prod/csd as there are no provided sources which are actually on Martin Pickford, however I decided to err on the side of conservative deletion/more discussion. So, my claim is this BLP is not sufficiently notable and is currently not verifiable. There are three external links, one is an aggregation of Martin's papers and the other two concern his discovery of Orrorin tugenensis, however none of these articles are actually about him. They're all about his discovery of tugenensis (which certainly meets notability and verifiability requirements - which is probably why it has its own article) and though very interesting, in its current state, I don't think it meets Wikipedia's standard for notability/verifiability. --Carbon Rodney 15:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. 17:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. 17:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with a GS h-index of 27 in an average cited field passes WP:Prof#C1 by miles. I find it hard to understand the rationale for this nomination. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]

That's an interesting metric, how well does it apply to non-physicists? --Carbon Rodney 23:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These matters are discussed in policy guideline WP:Prof and its talk page. It is a good idea to familiarize oneself with the Wiki policy on a topic before jumping in with edits, particularly an AfD , that demand the attention of other editors. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Ah, I was working under the assumption that a BLP with no citations was a worthy candidate for AfD discussion. --Carbon Rodney 02:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:Before a nominator is expected to search for sources before bringing an article to AfD. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:20, 19 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Keep: Very well known paleontologist. Needs improved referencing but no reason to delete.There seem sources available in the google news, books and scholar links above. (Msrasnw (talk) 23:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Eg Brian Regal's book Human Evolution: A Guide to the Debates (see here [4] seems to have plenty on Pickford (Msrasnw (talk) 23:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Some other little sources to help establish notability Daily Mail, PBS, Spiegel, The Guardian (Msrasnw (talk) 15:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Ah ok, well if you can insert reliable sources for some of the article's claims that would be a good reason not to delete it. Currently my issue with the article is not so much whether he is a sufficiently well known palaeontologist or whether there are enough links in the article to papers he's written and more the fact that the article consists of six paragraphs of text with zero citations and only one of those paragraphs isn't about tugenensis (so the article indicates to me, that he has done one very famous thing - if he is famous for more, I'd love to see a paragraph about it but at the moment it looks like the only reason this article exists is because his tugenensis find is so notable that some of its notability has spilt onto him). --Carbon Rodney 00:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PROF, after Msrasnw's improvements make this look more like a biography, and less like a "controversy" content-fork of Orrorin. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas_Tuttebury

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

super short Ldorfman (talk) 14:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep as no valid argument for deletion has been made. Please see WP:STUB. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a stub but it has references. I'm not sure we'll be able to expand an article on someone from the 15th century by much. Comment: Has a large number of links to it due to template:Deans of Wells. RJFJR (talk) 15:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(I just noticed: the article was created today. RJFJR (talk) 15:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. 17:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 17:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep as a well-referenced article. Brevity is not a valid deletion criterion. -- 202.124.72.43 (talk) 06:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (moved here from Talk page, by Smalljim) When I started editing Wikipedia, I recall reading that deletionists should wait when a short article appeared as some editors build their articles between saves. Bashereyre (talk) 07:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Despite what he hints at, Bashereyre's editing record shows that he's far more interested in achieving a high article creation count than in expanding any of the thousands of stubs he's produced. It's only when they're threatened with deletion that he takes any significant action to build on them. However, a couple of previous AfDs suggested that the consensus view is that these stubs are a net benefit to WP, or at least do no harm. —SMALL JIM 11:06, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wikipedia precedent seems to hold that the Deans of Wells are noteworthy. The article has plenty of references. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 16:36, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Well referenced. We have list articles on most Deans and Archdeacons of the Church of England and its pre-reformation predecessor. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Transferred from talk pageBoth Fasti Ecclesiae Anglicanae^[1] and The History of Buckingham^[2] have him dying in 1402 whilst possessed of the Archdeaconship of Buckingham. Either these two sources are erroneous or we need to take a closer look at the sources that have him acting after this date. I also note the source we give for the 1410 date of the end of his tenure as Dean of Wells actually has him as Dean only in the year 1400.--Pontificalibus (talk) 16:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

^ Le Neve, John (1854). Fasti Ecclesiae Anglicanae. Vol. 2. p. 69. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)
^ Willis, Browne (1755). The history and antiquities of the town, hundred, and deanry of Buckingham. Vol. 2. p. 74. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)

Could this be two separate people?Bashereyre Bashereyre (talk) 16:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in North Carolina, 2012#District 11. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hayden Rogers

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

Does not meet notability criteria per WP:POLITICIAN Arbor8 (talk) 13:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. 17:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. 17:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. 17:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect- To United States House of Representatives elections in North Carolina, 2012#District 11, where his candidacy is already appropriately mentioned, restore and expand if elected. Dru of Id (talk) 19:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:POLITICIAN the individual lacks suitable notability now, this may have changed by November and therefore United States House of Representatives elections in North Carolina, 2012#District 11 is the best target for this article for now. Valenciano (talk) 20:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in New York, 2012#District 19. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:30, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Schreibman

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

Does not meet notability criteria of WP:POLITICIAN Arbor8 (talk) 13:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Redirect- To United States House of Representatives elections in New York, 2012#District 19 where his candidacy is already appropriately mentioned, restore and expand if elected. Dru of Id (talk) 19:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in New York, 2012#District 19 per WP:POLITICIAN and WP:BLP1E. Does not meet criteria for stand-alone article. Location (talk) 03:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Speedy Delete as Copyvio (G12) Alexf^(talk) 01:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suitest

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

Non-notable software package; fails GNG, as there are no reliable sources that I can find Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. 17:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unreferenced, no indication of notability, created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 09:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: my findings don't differ from those of Dialectric. BTW, the article is a copy-paste of the GitHub page of the project. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Maloney

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

Not a notable sports team MathewTownsend (talk) 12:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Think you'll find them in Football League One which is in this list making them notable and him with it as he has made his pro-debut.--Egghead06 (talk) 15:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep - nomination appears to be on the basis that Jack Maloney is a non-notable sports team?? Assuming that he meant Jack Maloney plays for a non-notable team, that is, frankly, utterly ludicrous. Two years ago, Portsmouth were in the Premier League, the most-watched league in the world in the most popular spectator sport on the planet..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this chap has made his professional sports debut, meeting WP:NFOOTBALL. Article needs improving, not deleting, to meet WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 21:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This player is clearly worthy of being on wiki and with the amount of people who have shown interest in editing this page, it will soon be up to wiki's standard. Kudosn (User talk:Kudosn)
Comment - WP:NFOOTBALL actually states that anyone who has appeared in a fully professional league is presumed to be notable. While Portsmouth plays in a fully professional league, Maloney appears to not have played in a league match. He has appeared in a League Cup match between two fully professional teams, but NFOOTBALL does not mention cup matches (although the essay WP:FOOTYN does appear to include cup matches).Nigel Ish (talk) 17:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Because the Football League Cup is a competition restricted to members of the Football League, a fully professional league, appearances in it have for as long as I can remember counted as passing WP:NFOOTBALL and that guideline's predecessors. Mr Maloney played in a Football League Cup tie for a high-profile third-tier club. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't wildly disagree that Maloney is probably notable (although the fact that Pompey have just signed 10 players on one month contracts [5] may reduce the chances of Maloney playing more matches in the near future). Perhaps someone needs to clarify NFOOTBALL about matches between fully professional teams in cup competions.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has not played a fully professional league game. Cup games are not league games. Also there are not enough articles references to suggest he is notable.Simione001 (talk) 11:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Struway2 - League Cup games count towards meeting WP:NFOOTBALL. — sparklism ^hey! 12:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While he has not played in a league match, appearances in the League Cup are considered sufficient in passing WP:NFOOTBALL, as it only permits teams from the Football League, which is fully professional. Mattythewhite (talk) 13:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nom with unanimous keep !votes. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mather House (Case Western Reserve University)

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

Non-notable college building. No real indication of notability; the only reference is to a university sources. There's apparently nothing that makes this building any different from any of the millions of college buildings in the world. GrapedApe (talk) 12:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I can't tell for certain because the records haven't been digitized, but it's probably in the National Register of Historic Places as a contributing property in the Flora Stone Mather College Historic District. It was designed by Abram Garfield, who I'm surprised to find doesn't have an article. - Eureka Lott 13:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Now added that university page link and a bit more to the article; more detail should be available in the off-line NRHP nomination document for the district. Thanks Eureka Lott for figuring that out. Abram Garfield architect article also now started. Seems like a pretty major work of the architect, it seems notable from documents already available or to be available. I think i created it as a stub long ago, just as part of a small tug-of-war with Harvard's Mather House dorm residents who believed theirs (Mather House (Harvard University) to be the center of the universe :) , when there are multiple others at Mather House disambiguation. But this one at Case Western Reserve is in fact individually wikipedia-notable. --do ncr am 16:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. 17:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nom, as contributing property to Flora Stone Mather College Historic District. Though, for the future, unless it is expanded, it probably should be merged into that article.--GrapedApe (talk) 23:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Annabel Ritchie

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

This page is a bibliography of a living person. It contains personal information whic is not available publicly.

I am the person who this article about and I wish it to be deleted. ~~annabelclair~~ I understand the article to be created by youths aged under 15 years. The article also contains factual errors and ought to be removed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Annabelclair (talk • contribs)

Delete - Not notable per WP:ATHLETE#High school and pre-high school athletes, and no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Lone boatman (talk) 10:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Oops, I somehow missed the part about her being a rower for NZ in the World Rowing Championships (now linked in the article). If that can be referenced, then she would certainly meet the threshold of notability in WP:ATHLETE. Lone boatman (talk) 15:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The concerns brought forth by the nominator are editorial matters and not valid reasons to delete the article. I see no glaring BLP issues in the article, but if there is unsourced, factually incorrect information in the article, then the offending content should be removed, not the entire article. As far as I can tell this individual competed in the officially recognized world championship of her sport, which qualifies her for inclusion under WP:ATH. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. 15:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DELETEthe article contravenes W:BLP . Very limited regard to the subjects privacy or families privacy and no source to back up the source of personal information. regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives: the possibility of harm to living subjects must be consideredt. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Annabelclair (talk • contribs) 15 August 2012

I struck and indented your vote. You nominated the article for deletion, so your nomination is your vote. City Of Silver 20:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. 20:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)-gadfium 20:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Regard for the subject's privacy" does not mean the subject can request deletion because he or she does not want to be represented on Wikipedia. Your username suggests you are the subject of the article. Feel free to remove any information which is "not available publicly"; I don't see anything that obviously fits that definition, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. It looks like some of it may have been removed already, although I'm really not sure what information you considered potentially harmful here. --BDD (talk) 22:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think she fails WP:ATHLETE as she has not participated at an Olympics, there aren't specific Rowing criteria and there isn't really enough in the article to meet GNG. Not sure if competing in the World Championships is enough, or does it have to be the olympics? We may need some rowing topic experts here. Mattlore (talk) 06:41, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. WP:ATHLETE requires that an individual "have participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics" (emphasis added). I'm pretty sure that competing in the World Rowing Championships is considered "highest level" in this sport. That being said, notability is still borderline at best as far as WP:GNG is concerned, so I think we should be able to take the subject's wishes into account here. I have provided Annabelclair (talk · contribs) instructions on how to contact the Foundation to verify that she is indeed Annabel Ritchie and not an impostor. If a member of the OTRS team comes here to say that she has done so, then I will switch my !vote to delete. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per WP:ATHLETE because she has competed at International Rowing Events. Has sufficient media coverage from reliable sources - her concerns with any inaccuracy could be easily addressed by editing the article. A quick Google search seems to verify the information in the article as it presently stands. There does not seem to be anything that is not already in the public arena. NealeFamily (talk) 06:39, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

""Annabelclair"" here - I contacted the details that KuyaBriBri gave me. They said it has to go thru this process to have it deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annabelclair (talk • contribs) 10:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Marginal notability + subject's wishes pushes this into delete territory. First Light (talk) 01:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marginal Keep I suppose that NealeFamily is correct with his assessment of WP:ATHLETE; I almost wonder if maybe this article and any others on rowers could be merged into a List of notable competitive rowers or something. Go Phightins! (talk) 02:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Ritchie has competed as a rower at the top level of her sport (World Championships) as confirmed here from the 1999 World Championships. Per WP:BLP, we can remove the unsourced material, and if applicable, Wikipedia:Revision deletion might be applicable, but none of those are reasons for deletion of the article. -- Whpq (talk) 20:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Nicholls

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

This article reads like an advertisement. A search of the Internet for more information suggests strongly that the subject is not notable in the sense of Wikipedia. Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. Having searched for spelling variations, I have noticed that our similarly-titled articles Steve Nichols and Stephen Nichols are also poorly-sourced, so to anyone searching, please keep a note of any sources you come across related to them as well as him.—S Marshall T/C 12:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless much better third-party verifiability of noteworthiness comes up - David Gerard (talk) 12:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A search has found numerous sources that were not originally in the article. High Beam comes up short but a search of Google for "Steve Nicholls social media" brings up sources such as Industry Week and CNN news. There are many Steve Nicholls out there so you need to narrow your search by putting more than just his name in the search. --Morning277 (talk) 13:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Morning277 is the original creator and sole-author of this article. Perhaps it would be helpful to explain how you came across Mr. Nicholls and made the decision to make a biography about him, so that we might better understand the claim of notability.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I did not realize who recommended the deletion. Regardless, I believe that the article does meet notability guidelines. I came across the article Here after looking up books on social media. I came across his book, then him, then Wiki. Was surprised as I thought the original article was good but it was denied due to lack of sources as the only ones it contained were self published I believe. I am writing from my phone so when I get to a computer I will do more research and hopefully come up with more reliable sources. Also, as you say it is written like an ad, any suggestions on how to make it read less like an ad would be appreciated. Thanks. --Morning277 (talk) 14:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Note I found the CNN link. It's a blog post. Nothing wrong with that, but does little in my view to help establish notability. We need independent third party references about Mr. Nicholls to help with that.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Citations - I agree that there must be independent and reliable sources to support notability. I found additional sources that I believe count towards notability. There is one of him giving an interview on Money Sense Radio where he is cited as a "pioneer in social media for business."[6] He is also featured in Industry News Weekly.[7] The Courier Journal quotes him in an article (this is borderline passing mention but I believe that it would help establish notability).[8] Here is an article in Tech Journal that quotes him.[9] There is one from Philly.com but it is a reprint of the St.Louse dispatch (not to be used as an additional source but I believe it lends more credibility to the St. Louis Dispatch article that is cited by Carrite below.[10]--Morning277 (talk) 15:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is actually the Courier Journal cited by Carrite so I believe the St. Louis Dispatch could be counted as an additional source. --Morning277 (talk) 15:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. 16:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and wikify ~~Delete~~ The book might squeak by wp:notability but this is not an article on the book I saw no suitable coverage on the individual. The writing looks like a pure advertisement/resume. North8000 (talk) 17:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my recommendation from "delete" to "keep and wikify" due to additional sourcing which has been added. I'll try to wikify the wording a bit. North8000 (talk) 12:31, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tweaked wording a bit North8000 (talk) 12:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for cleaning up the article.--Morning277 (talk) 15:38, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Cited as an expert on Social Media in This Piece from the Louisville, KY Courier-Journal. Carrite (talk) 18:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Comment - I have added additional sources that were found online including the Huffington Post, the Courier Journal, etc. Not sure what additional is needed to show his notability.--Morning277 (talk) 21:11, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Things he has written and quotes by him are not the same as coverage of him. I don't see enough independent RSs with enough depth of coverage to meet WP:BASIC or WP:AUTHOR. Novaseminary (talk) 18:39, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is promotional, an advertisement rather than a biography. The Courier-Journal article quotes him as an expert but says nothing about him. The other references fail to establish his notability, whether using WP:AUTHOR, WP:BASIC, or WP:GNG as the standard. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ) (cont) Join WER 15:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sound very self-promotional; plus the subject fails WP: BIO and is therefore non-notable. Electric Catfish 23:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete TThe book is self-published, by a vanity publisher called Bookinars, [11] that specializes in works intended to increase business revenue. The book is listed by worldcat as being in a total of 5 libraries only. As n author, he is therefore totally non-notable. Being cited as an expert in local or regional papers is a very insecure basis for importance--it really just means the article is likely to be PR-based. DGG ( talk ) 02:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RSVP Gallery

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

Not notable. Pure advertising. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero references, zero indication of wp:notability, zero enclyclopedic content. The content and its manner of wording is pure advertisement. North8000 (talk) 11:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:N. Exemplifies WP:COI or at least WP:ADVERT.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. 15:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. 15:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Theory of tides. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:03, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamic theory of tides

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

Content fork redundant with tides and theory of tides, poorly written and sourced. Waleswatcher (talk) 11:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~/merge Pure duplication/content fork under a dubious name. Looks like this might have briefly been considered a "theory" in 1775, but is now just basic accepted tidal info. I saw no sourcing to indicate that anything by this name or content exists as an identifiable entity. Zero indication of wp:notability given for this term. North8000 (talk) 11:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC) modified North8000 (talk) 11:41, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The word "theory" in naming a scientific theory in no way indicates that it is speculative; in fact, the obvious merge/redirect target would be Theory of tides. I have the impression that there is referenced material here about the experimental confirmation of the accuracy of Laplace's simplified model that is not represented elsewhere, in which case deletion cannot be recommended, but I haven't looked at this in detail for lack of time. --Lambiam 08:04, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All true. But I think that this article is still a wreck and a duplication and is titled with an obscure little-used term that does not satisfy wp:notability. I guess that points to a merge.North8000 (talk) 11:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. 16:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Theory of tides. Google book and scholar search show enough hits on "dynamic theory of tides" to establish that this is a reasonable search term. --Lambiam 10:48, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Grace (Singapore Chinese Christian) Church

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

It does not meet WP:GNG, WP:CSD#A7. This article is about a non-notable worship centre. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Seems like advertisement to me.
Relevant Policies and Guidelines:

WP:LOTSOFSOURCES ← Whilst showing the subject is mentioned in a number of sources, not all sources are reliable and may only be trivial mentions.
WP:NOTABILITY
WP:VERIFIABILITY Mrt3366 ^(Talk?) 10:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. 16:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. 16:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. 16:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: While I declined the speedy deletion placed on the article, I don't think this church meets WP:GNG or WP:ORG. I can't find any online or news sources. It's possible that sources do exist, but are in Chinese (since services are held in Cantonese and Mandarin). If anyone can find sufficient sources, I'll change my comments here. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 1300 members (as stated in the article) is large for a church, but not notably large -- there are no doubt thousands or more of similarly sized churches in the world. It also has a reasonably long history, although not always under this name -- length of existence is another consideration under WP:NONPROFIT. But it's not particularly long in terms of churches and religious organizations. None of the other facts specified in the article suggest notability under WP:NONPROFIT. So, I would say non-notable. --Lquilter (talk) 13:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep -- This potentially a well-written objective article free of advertising, but it lacks references. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:31, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fatjon Tafaj

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. Contest rationale was based on the age of the article, which has not bearing on notability whatsoever. Sir Sputnik (talk) 09:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following articles for similar reasons. Sir Sputnik (talk) 10:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 10:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:08, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all – every single one of them fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY due to minimal media coverage and zero appearances in a fully professional league. – Kosm1 fent 10:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. 16:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is first division Albanian league not professional? --Mr. Mario (talk) 22:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Professional? Yes. But claims that it is fully professional, as required by WP:NSPORT, have not been supported by reliable sources. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So the real challenge is to find whether the league is professional or not. UEFA website says nothing. --Mr. Mario (talk) 23:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mentoz86 (talk) 03:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Although the case for notability is weak here, I don't think it's weak enough for me to disregard the arguments of the keep voters. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Prill

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 19:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to fail WP:MUSIC. The article is very promotional in tone. All of the sources are local coverage from the Bad Axe paper, self-promoting quotes from others on the National Grandparents' Day website, or trivial (a two-sentence review on his single, a couple brief blurbs in the Detroit Free Press — "Disc of the week" is definitely trivial). A search on Google News found nothing that wasn't from the Bad Axe paper, and Google Books gave nothing. This article has a lot of words, but says very little about what makes Prill notable. Having a lot of famous people give you lip service is not notability. Even his official song for Grandparents' Day is barely an assertation, as I can't find any secondary sources to verify it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note The article was successfully deleted in 2009, and was re-created in 2011. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator --Artene50 (talk) 04:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NOTAVOTE. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See 'if the nominator clearly expresses your opinion on the matter, making you parrot their statement instead of just saying 'per nom' is needless bureaucracy'. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup - This person passes WP:BASIC per the following reliable secondary sources (they were found in the article): [12], [13], [14]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:31, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you miss the part about "All of the sources are local coverage from the Bad Axe paper"? You can't build an article entirely on local sources. I've been in the Oscoda paper several times; does that make me notable? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Vanispamcruftisement Gets a little bit of local interest coverage but nothing significant. Note that the so called "National Grandparents' Day website" is his own personal website. Winning one of one years National Grandparents' Day council's songwriting is not a major a major award. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG. This is a topic that is already covered elsewhere in the encyclopedia and has reliable sourcing. Thus there is no case here for deletion of the redirect, and no case is being made that there is objectionable material in the edit history that requires deletion. I agree that the article has promotional tone, but so too does the article here and here. IMO the attention given to Prill by Stabenow and Seeger contributes to wp:notability. The Carter picture, comment, and signature is interesting; it doesn't in prose show that Carter knew anything about Prill except his first name; yet attention goes from the former president to Prill's connection to National Grandparent's Day. Unscintillating (talk) 03:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You really think having famous people kiss your ass = notability? WP:NOTINHERITED. All they did was pimp him out. They are not reviewers. Every argument you've made so far is "He's notable because he has a tangential tie to another notable thing", "What about X?", and your "already covered elsewhere"/"has reliable sourcing" comment is immaterial. This has nothing to do with National Grandparents Day's notability; it has to do with his notability. Just because the holiday is notable, doesn't mean he is. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not reliably sourced, the so called "National Grandparents' Day website" is Prill's own personal website, not an independent reliable source. The only reason that this info exists here in three different places is because one person decided to spam the same cruft into three different places. He claims to have the "official" song but who makes it official? the National Grandparents Day Council of Chula Vista, California. Who are they? What makes what they say official for a public holiday? Was the song official for only the year in which he won the contest then official goes on to the next winner? We don't know cause it's a minor contest reliable sources don't seem to be covering and the only info we are getting is coming from Prill himself. This article should be deleted and this self serving spam removed from other locations. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The National Grandparents Day Council, "Who are they?" "The National Council of Grandparents Day (National Grandparents Day Council) is a nonprofit corporation established by descendants of Marian M. McQuade, founder of National Grandparents Day." ref. The article also gives attention to Johnny Prill. Unscintillating (talk) 20:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 04:22, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The promotional tone of this article makes it suspect, but the bottom line is this guy is not notable enough. The bulk of the sources are gleaned from "nationalgrandparentsday.com" a place I don't think is verifiable enough. Interestingly, that article on WP was/is edited by the same person who created this guy's. The other sources are local newspapers. Nothing substantial, national or distinguished. That's not enough for him to pass WP:GNG no way, no how.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 16:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Muldoon is an example of an article sourced with two "local" sources; where one book had an ISBN not listed at Worldcat; and about the other book an editor posted, "To the best of my knowledge the book was merely printed locally, not published.". The newspaper in the current discussion is available worldwide on the www. As for the Stabenow reference, it is a picture of a letter from a senator. It is either reliable or it is a forgery. Is somebody that has attracted attention for volunteering in nursing homes and has attracted attention from politicians, writers, and musicians for promoting grandparents, going to resort to a forgery that is easily tested by writing to the Senator's office? I think not. I also note that the previous post has overlooked an international source I provided on 31 July in my previous post. WP:GNG only requires two "good" articles to establish wp:notability, a benchmark which is surpassed here. Unscintillating (talk) 23:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think the Governor kissing your ass = notability? No. That's called riding coattails. Also, the availability of the sources is immaterial to notability. Whether they're only available locally or online has no bearing on notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First of all, for someone who is quite active on AfD, you should know about WP:OTHERSTUFF. That is, I don't care if Bobo Smith has an article and his sources haven't been updated at all since his proud grandmother created it. All I care about, Sir, is if this guy has some independent, verfiable sources. And it has come to my attention that this "www.nationalgrandparentsday" is his site. So not a source that is strong, if even valid. And the bulk of the references link to this promotional site. As for the picture, again, it is great for Bobo to have a picture of him, say, shaking hands with Bill Clinton. But while Clinton is notable, Bobo is not. Same applies to Mr. Prill, who does not pass WP:GNG.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 00:00, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was aware of the concern represented by the copyright on the grandparents website when I stated, "IMO the attention given to Prill by Stabenow and Seeger contributes to wp:notability." There is an argument to be made that the ~~Clinton~~ Carter picture could have been routinely obtained, and therefore shows no wp:notability, but I don't see how the Stabenow and Seeger pictures can exist without the politician and the singer directly attending to Prill, i.e., the pictures reliably show that Prill is "attracting attention" from the "world-at-large". I think it is reasonable to believe that Prill posted the two pictures. I see nothing wrong with a source providing evidence of wp:notability, it makes our job as editors easier when sources provide such. The promotional tone is a different problem, promotional tone is a content issue. wp:notability as per WP:N is not a function of the content of Wikipedia articles. To run through the main points again, the National Grandparents Day is nationally recognized by congress, and Prill is a prominent part of this story. As such there is no case for deletion of the redirect. Nor is there any case being made for deleting the edit history (the promotional tone can be fixed with ordinary editing). If there is no case to delete the redirect, and no case to delete the edit history, there is no case for deletion<full stop> Further, a variety of secondary sources in the article, and more found for this AfD, support the position that WP:GNG and WP:N are satisfied. Unscintillating (talk) 01:41, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Dear Sir, please see comments above in regards to photo by "ten pound hammer."Jimsteele9999 (talk) 23:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He is not a prominent part of the day. There may be an argument that he is a prominent part of the story of the self created council, but I don't consider that to be so. But not of the day. The song might be the official song of the council as mentioned in your link to the story about the council but that gives it no other status. The passing mention in that article is trivial coverage. The. Ouncil itself gets hardly any coverage And prill is only a trivial part of that so to leap to call him a prominent part of a related story is wrong. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:20, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But WP:DUE prominence is defined not by Wikipedia editors but by reliable sources. And trivial coverage is something like a listing in a phone book. Unscintillating (talk) 01:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources have not given him prominence, just passing mentions. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:52, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a Highbeam preview of a 2004 article about Prill in the Polish-American Journal and here is an amusing music review in the lasvegasmercury that is comparable to the review already cited in the article from the Las Vegas Weekly. Unscintillating (talk) 02:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First one still looks like run of the mill PR. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

{ec} Please state your evidence. Unscintillating (talk) 00:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[15]. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Dear Sir, username "duffbeer: makes a good point, the mention in the sources are topical. The "review" you listed (second source) is merely a capsule. I do understand you are invested in preserving this article, but I don't see him as a lynchpin of the day. From your argument, it would see Prill is. But indeed, Prill is a pawn. The picture you mentioned doesn't fit WP:GNG per my Bill Clinton argument in previous comments.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 00:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DUE is a policy that says prominence is determined by sources, duff is using a definition of prominence that bases prominence on his/her personal opinion. As per the text at the start of every AfD edit, "All input is welcome, though valid arguments citing relevant guidelines will be given more weight than unsupported statements". Being a linchpin is not what WP:N is about, see the lead of WP:N. See also WP:Redirects for deletion. I mentioned three pictures, two of the three IMO clearly show attention being given directly to Prill, which as per the nutshell of WP:N goes to notability. Each non-trivial source contributes to wp:notability, some more than others. We have singers; politicians; four different newspapers in Huron, Detroit, and Las Vegas; an independent council in California; a foreign language article; the list goes on. As per the nutshell of WP:N, the "world-at-large" has given Prill "sufficiently significant attention". Even if you argue against "sufficiently", you still have no theoretical case for deletion, so none of the delete !votes are making policy-based arguments. As per recent analysis such non-policy delete !votes might be rehabilitated with partial weight as "redirect or merge somewhere" !votes. But if there are no editors arguing for redirect or merge, there is no place to assign these !votes but with the "keep" !votes. This is the point at which a closing administrator may restore the standing of the delete !votes to declare that there was no consensus at the AfD, but this type of close encourages the cycle of unnecessary AfD nominations and non-policy-based Delete !votes to continue. There are other possibilities, but the best long-term result for the community here is a close as "Keep". Unscintillating (talk) 01:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not basing it on my opionon of prominece. I'm basing it on what independent reliable sources have written, or rather in this case not written. If the pictures you are refering to are the ones on his site then they are not independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:33, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: To give more time to comment on the new sources. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep On the minus side, about 10 of the "references" are NationalGrandparentsDay.com which is his OWN web site. On the plus side, regarding real-world notability, if the claims are true, some major folks have recorded songs written by him and has received some reviews. Also there are 4 sources which appear wp:notability-suitable. Two are too hard for anyone to quickly check (old and off-line) and two are on-line and look suitable. The wording style is not too promotional, but the choice of material to cover is. North8000 (talk) 12:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In terms of the "sources" listed, I agree the bulk of them listed are from his own website. By default I consider this promotional! Moreover, local newspapers are not considered "independent" by Wikipedia. Also, this [16] is a capsule. Not extensive coverage. Merely passing mention. Despite the multitude of "sources" listed, not one confirms notability. And, for the record, Sir, I do see "duffbeer" as having a point here. The impetus of this article was to promote this subject, and this "day" and unfortunately this makes the notability factor a hard sell. The lack of independent sources and appropriate coverage just seal the deal for a delete.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 16:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily disagreeing with you overall, but where did you hear "local newspapers are not considered "independent" by Wikipedia."? North8000 (talk) 17:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's this [17] a straight-foward layout of what is independent, and what isn't. What we have for Prill isn't much in the way of the former. One of the many reasons this guy is not notable. Jimsteele9999 (talk) 02:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Team UNO

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

Pure Original Research claiming about a new game created today. PROD was removed by the author. I am expecting a Speedy delete. Anbu121 (talk me) 09:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was a friend that edited the page and has stopped and will not be editing anymore. It is an original idea that came from uno just a variation and thought i would share our new game - Author --Buttersully (talk) 09:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. 16:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MADEUP. Wikipedia is not a place for things a group of friends made up one day. Rorshacma (talk) 22:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now That's What I Call Chill

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Now That's What I Call Chill

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

A non-notable edition of the Now series in the UK. These typically receive no significant coverage in reliable sources, although they tend to sell well due to heavy promotion and the long-term popularity of the series. Popularity as indicated by sales charts doesn't equate to notability if there's no coverage. Redirects have been reverted and the author fails to discuss. At the least, this one is just too soon with nothing more than a track list. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 19:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:50, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No coverage found for this future release; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS at this time. I'm also not opposed to redirecting this to Now That's What I Call Music! discography. Gongshow ^Talk 19:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Permission given for speedy renomination. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meny Hoffman

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 16:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable businessman. Even the sources of the article are quoting him rather than being about him. There's nothing about him. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 06:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why this page is considered for deletion. In actuality, Meny Hoffman is a well known businessman and some of the references that he was quoted in were garnered because he is a well-known figure, specifically within the marketing industry. Additionally, he was a keynote speaker at Infusioncon (an industry event) for a crowd of over 3,000 people, and was on a speaker roster with notable marketing leaders like Gary Vaynerchuk and others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lakewood363 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Everything referenced in here is verifiable and it would appear that he is somebody who is very much recognized within the marketing industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.56.124.218 (talk) 14:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ayushma Pandey

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 16:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable writer. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 06:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only references in the article are links to articles the subject has written ather than to WP:RS articles about the subject. No other suitable references found, so fails WP:BASIC and WP:AUTHOR. AllyD (talk) 21:33, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Simply fails WP:GNG. Not even a single reliable source to assert and establish notability of the subject under discussion. — Bill william compton^Talk 23:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:38, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leah Francis

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 16:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 16:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find indications of notability outside of the pictorials listed here, and some primary source websites Shadowjams (talk) 02:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of coverage if you ask your mother to disable parental controls. Periglio (talk) 23:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lolz Shadowjams (talk) 02:24, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Unless the article can be expanded to show she is notable. At present clearly NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:08, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Real United Football Club

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

PROD contested by article creator; original rationale was "No evidence of notability, local amateur sports club" - this concern remains. Giant Snowman 08:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. There are no sources and more important no indication of notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 10:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – hurts my eyes. No evidence of notability as well, fails WP:GNG. – Kosm1 fent 10:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable. I find a good rule of thumb is any football club article that includes the word "we" is ripe for deletion. Keresaspa (talk) 19:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a notable club, and even if they were the article is of such shocking quality that I would still nominate it for deletion and suggest it be started again from scratch...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Central Midlands Football League Del_♉sion23 (talk) 13:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A poor quality article of a club that clearly fails WP:FOOTYN and WP:GNG. League Octopus (League Octopus 10:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Delete: fails WP:GNG. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 15:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stiletto Spy School

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

Blatant, uncontroversial WP:Promo, written by a self-declared WP:COI editor User:Eclipsed, sourced by PR-fed "news feeds" and media-invite driven PR events. This is simply a two-store local business which spent money on ongoing PR services, and requested, and expected, a Wikipedia article. All refs are puff pieces, and were instigated by PR; text about the company itself is substantially the same text in all refs. None were organic ("I saw an ad and went", or "My neighbor went and told me about it") - no refs describe any reason for writing about the business. None constitute an investigation, a review, comparison with any other such studios, analysis, survey, or other research. No refs cite any other sources. None were written by experts, or anyone qualified to judge the quality of the training given, or the claims made about the instructors employed. Example: MSNBC's video shows an obvious promo filming setup - studio setting with company logo prominently displayed the entire time. The Psychology Today article was written by a self-declared PR person. The Fox News piece included a former CIA operations officer, but he had nothing good or bad to say about the school itself, other than "If you know 'just enough about everything', you know just enough to get into a world of hurt." The timing of the sources appears deliberate, resembling PR release timing. This is, indirectly, gaming Wikipedia's "sources over time" requirement in GNG. Article was PRODed. User:Silver seren deleted the PROD an hour later without disclosing it on the talk page with ({{Old prod full}}) per WP:DEPROD (step 3). The deletion edit summary was "The article is clearly notable, per the GNG and the numerous high quality sources". No, not per WP:GNG, or per WP:CORP, or per WP:SCHOOL. Sources aren't independent, if they are prompted by PR. Only two sources could have been high quality, but in this case, are not.

There may be pro-PR-based article POV. User:Silver seren praised Eclipsed's authorship of multiple business article stubs here:

"One of the best examples, I think, of a paid editor (I know this is about PR specifically, but it's related) becoming a volunteer and then also helping to serve the overall company article issue is User:Eclipsed. He's been diligently working in his Requested articles workspace on creating stubs for requested company and business articles. ..." -- User:Silver seren "

May be mergeable into a larger article about spy "schools". Lexein (talk) 08:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What the hell is with the personal attacks on me and Eclipsed? This is not promotional at all and Eclipsed is not a COI editor for this subject. Just because he has a COI on something else doesn't mean you can then say he has a COI on all company articles. He's been working on the backlogged company AfC requests all on his own because he wants to help out. Furthermore, your "analysis" of the sources is all opinion with no proof whatsoever. The refs are all months apart, meaning that they weren't in response to a single event. Here's coverage of it in Het Laatste Nieuws and here's coverage in Le Figaro, as additional sources to what's already in the article. I don't know what your problem is with me or Eclipsed, Lexein, but there's absolutely nothing wrong with this article. It's notable, period. Silver seren^C 09:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Nothing personal. No attack intended. I disagree with direct paid editing (via Talk ok), and I think COI editors should only create articles through AfC, when there is even a hint of a conflict. A history of paid editing tinges everything with conflict. I took note of your enthusiastic support of this COI editor, because that, and this article, changes the nature of this encyclopedia, steering it toward being PR, a directory, things that it is WP:NOT intended to be.

That an editor declares COI does not grant license to create articles about small businesses based on puff sources, and it doesn't matter what country publishes the puff piece, it's puff, and PR. I don't dispute that the business exists (it does), just that it meets standalone notability (it doesn't). Wikipedia is not a WP:DIRECTORY, or a WP:PROMO venue; here, I apply WP:DUCK. Nearly identical text in puff pieces, one written by a PR person = PR-driven. Independent and reliable sources provide substantial discussion supporting the importance of the topic, but none of the sources used or in Talk do that. "It was fun and empowering, said the customer standing there" does not a notable business make. I am skeptical of these sources, their timing, who triggered them, who sponsored them for the reasons stated. If there were any substantive professional sources: doctor, sports psychologist, training expert, espionage expert, weapons expert, martial arts expert, business expert (analyst at the Wall Street Journal), anyone, I might not have put this up for AfD. But, bluntly, this article would not have survived AfC, so why should it now survive AfD?

What would you have me strike through? I will consider it.

May be mergeable into a larger article about spy schools.--Lexein (talk) 11:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – This topic passes WP:GNG per:

Daily News article
Today (NBC News/MSN) article
Le Figaro article
Het Laatste Nieuws article

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All nearly identical puff pieces. None demonstrate importance. The LeFigaro article seems a bit plagiarized from the NY Daily News - not a good source. The Het Laatste Nieuws article is just another regurgitation, not an original article, and not a good source. We have a responsibility as editors to spot PR splashes and set them aside. Some press releases, and PR-driven news placements in a larger article can be tolerated, but not every single one. --Lexein (talk) 12:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant Keep Sources establish wp:notability, probably genuine coverage because it is inherently novel & interesting to many. I consider them to be typical coverage, not "puff" pieces. Based on my superficial read of the above and the situation, high concerns about past and future exploiting / gaming of the system to do promotional work, but the system is the system unless we change it. So far it has been just a dry enclyclopedic stub but I suppose it has a high risk of being turned into a full blown promotional piece if it survives. North8000 (talk) 12:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. 16:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Guardians of Ga'Hoole. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:11, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Guardians of Ga'hoole: The Burning

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 19:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any indication that this book meets WP:NBOOKS criteria. Doubtful the book can surpass a plot summary. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 17:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I doubt I'll find enough to warrant keeping the article, but this might potentially be useful as a redirect. However, since the title of the series is also in the name, I'm wondering if a redirect would be too redundant...Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 2: This is actually mostly copyvio from the GoG wiki, so I'm going to tag it.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for pointing this out! I just have a nagging feeling of the possibility that Wikia may have copyvioed us, not the other way around. ~~In any case, I endorse the CSD and will look into this possibility~~. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 18:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- GASP! We didn't copy Wikia, Wikia copied us! Here is the alleged material being added to Wikia on 24 June 2011 [18] and here is the material being added to Wikipedia at 15 March 2011 [19]. I happen to have an account at Wikia and will notify them immediately. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 18:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Say it isn't so! LOL, I didn't even think of checking the date on the other article since I'm so used to people pasting stuff from other sites here. It's kind of novel to have it the other way around!Tokyogirl79 (talk) 23:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/weak redirect to the series. I'm not entirely sure that the title as listed would be that great of a redirect term, but since redirects are cheap it wouldn't really hurt anything to have the title redirect to the series page. I found only two sources for the article, one that mentioned that the book had been declined for a school district due to it potentially not meeting guidelines and a review by kidreads.com. There's an AudioFile review out there, but I can't actually find the review on the AudioFile site. I say that we put what we can in the main article and just redirect or delete this entry.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 23:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 21:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion on whether it should be kept or deleted, but a redirect would be better than deletion, as the article has existed for a few years and there is an obvious target; it would also allow the history to be retained from which the content could possibly be used. Peter James (talk) 21:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:07, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should Soft Delete this one if no one objects in the next listing period. There is a weak, weak consensus for redirecting, and I think a closure from silence maybe performed on this one. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 16:26, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 08:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Users relisting a debate for a third (or further) time, or relisting a debate with a substantial number of commenters, should write a short explanation (in addition to the relist template) on why they did not consider the debate sufficient. This "no 3rd relist" rule has not been followed. Thanks. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 08:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:40, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Grove's Law

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

This seems to be something that one guy just decided one day was to be called "Grove's Law." There seem to be no shortage of people claiming that some random thing that Andy Grove said is called "Grove's Law." The problem is that these things are all different from each other. There is no support in reliable third party sources that the claims made in this article are true. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a random thought by even a notable person is not notable itself: see WP:NOTINHERITED. Bearian (talk) 23:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Indeed there is no shortage of laws. I found a third. None appear to have become notable. I added the one he created himself to the Quotes section of the Andrew Grove article as this was the only one that was verifiable. --Kvng (talk) 03:34, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 08:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge Even the article says that there is no single law identified by the term. Would make a good paragraph in the Grove article. North8000 (talk) 12:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge with Andy Grove. Ambiguous and non-notable. If it is lucky, it just might warrant a brief comment at the Andy Grove article. Dolphin (t) 12:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Franck Nazikian

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Largely promotional biography of a non-notable entrepreneur; an examination of the article edit history (and history of its creator) reveals a possible COI. Zaldax (talk) 02:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This seems like a rather obvious keep. Hathatehat (talk) 08:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to ChinICT - My only interest in this article was due to Nazikian's ownership of the Argentine winery Lu di Franco but that winery is very non-notable and by itself wouldn't even pass WP:GNG much less WP:WINERY. Admittedly, I am not the most familiar with the tech industry but it seems like the company Nazikian founded, ChinICT, is notable even if Nazikian, himself, is not. If this was the reverse with a winery (with the winery notable but the owner not), over at WP:WINE we would merge the relevant, unbias and sourced content of the owner bio's over to the winery page and either delete or redirect the owner's page. As far as I can tell reading about Franck Nazikian in the English sources and what little I can glean from Google translate on the Chinese page, this seems like the best course. The ChinICT only needs a little about his tech experience and work with conference while other details (like his largely non-notable winery) can be deleted. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 17:00, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article should be kept. Indeed: 1) All references to the Lu di Franco Winery and Mr. Nazikian's activities in the wine business have been removed - including related categories. 2) Also, only highly reputable references about Mr. Nazikian's achievements as an entrepreneur have been kept (including Forbes, TechCrunch, China Daily, Les Echos, China Central Television, United Nations, Fortune Magazine); these references clearly establish Mr. Nazikian as a notable entrepreneur. 3) At last, Mr. Nazikian's Chinese name - 方克纳 - has been added for further references about him in Chinese on Google or on Chinese's largest search engine - baidu.com ; as a matter of facts, basic research about Mr. Nazikian on Google or on Baidu - in English or in Chinese - return an outstanding number of reliable references that also clearly establish him as a notable entrepreneur. For these 3 reasons this article should not be considered for deletion anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johngoldberg5 (talk • contribs) 18:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 08:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This seems like an obvious keep to me. Davidw895 —Preceding undated comment added 08:35, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based upon my own experience in tech business, a quick search on the Internet, as well as the checking of the references provided in this article, it is my opinion that this article should be kept as is now. JamesFarrow2005 —Preceding undated comment added 15:35, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Emirates Environmental Group

I myself have created this article of a local environmental organization. However, I recently received an e-mail from the organization, requesting me to delete the page as it violated their policy or something related to that. I request whoever concerned to delete this article as soon as possible. Gautham Manoj Pillai (talk) 06:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – This topic passes WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG:

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the author has asked for it and will get him in trouble with the organisation Seasider91 (talk) 17:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please take the message seriously. I am a member of the organization, and they have sent me a direct e-mail asking me to delete it. I created the article. I'm new to Wikipedia (not more than 8-9 months) and I request someone to make the process clear to me.--Gautham Manoj Pillai (talk) 13:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:09, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 05:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This may be a G7 case. However, assuming it's not WP:COPYVIO, if you're not employed by the organisation I'm not sure how they could "get you in troble" for writing about them. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Reliable sources are available and the article does not seem a copyvio; I might have missed some link on the primary site or other site while checking this. Therefore relisting for a last look by editors. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 03:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable as demonstrated by Northamerica1000, whose work has made the G7 argument more difficult. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, so you can explain to whoever contacted you that you made a good-faith attempt to have the article deleted, but others found it noteworthy enough for coverage. Whether an organization wants to be represented on Wikipedia has absolutely no bearing on whether it will be or not; just ask the scores of non-notable companies who have seen their promotional articles deleted. --BDD (talk) 20:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 08:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sherman Pendergarst

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

Nominated for deletion because does not meet WP:NMMA and does not appear to otherwise meet WP:GNG. Should be noted that death was covered by ESPN (http://espn.go.com/mma/story/_/id/8184080/heavyweight-sherman-pendergarst-45-dies-cancer). RonSigPi (talk) 04:17, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 06:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 06:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lots of coverage. ESPN. It seems we'll be seeing more of him.Hathatehat (talk) 08:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep He has two fights for top tier organizations, so he's just short of the WP:MMANOT guidelines, but there does seem to be some significant coverage of him, both from ESPN and from the Baltimore Sun, so I'd say he borderline passes WP:GNG. CaSJer (talk) 14:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 08:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Continuing to fight/perform while battling cancer adds substance to the article that is now historical. Another secondary reliable source at QuadCityTimes even though it adds no new information. I (and/or others) will flesh the article out a bit with info from the obit in the Baltimore Sun and add sources in the next few days. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ) (cont) Join WER 14:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leonardo Lucio Nascimento

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No fights for a first or second tier MMA organization. Subject also lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Fights, even if against notable opponents, do not show notability (WP:NOTINHERITED). Jakejr (talk) 04:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fighter has fought a number of notable fighters, one of which is a world champion in a major MMA promotion, also has had 2 fights in the past 6 months. Sepulwiki (talk), 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Jakejr (talk) 04:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I was actually surprised to see that he has an ESPN profile, but that was the only non-MMA source I could find. He does have fights against notable opponents, but notability is not inherited, and he definitely fails WP:MMANOT since he has no fights for top tier promotions. CaSJer (talk) 14:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject has no fights for any major MMA organization so he fails WP:MMANOT. The fact that he fought someone in a minor bout 3+ years ago who's now notable does not make him notable (see WP:NOTINHERITED). Mdtemp (talk) 17:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 08:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject fails all notability criteria with no fights for even a second tier MMA organization. The fact that he's had 2 fights in the last 6 months does not make him notable. Papaursa (talk) 19:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mikkel Guldbæk

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He has no fights for even a second tier MMA organization (failing WP:MMANOT) and his kickboxing record doesn't have anything to show he meets the kickboxing notability criteria at WP:KICK or the martial arts criteria at WP:MANOTE. Jakejr (talk) 04:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Jakejr (talk) 04:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet any notability criteria and also lacks signficiant independent coverage. Mdtemp (talk) 18:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 07:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As previously stated, he has no fights for a notable MMA promotion and no significant independent coverage. Astudent0 (talk) 23:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Cheng (fighter)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Subject has no fights for a top tier MMA organization, thus failing WP:MMANOT, and all coverage of him falls in the routine sports coverage category. Jakejr (talk) 04:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Jakejr (talk) 04:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable fighter for a notable promotion. Reached finals of a big tournament to crown new champion before being injured. Pound4Pound (talk) 12:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also pointing out MMANOT is an unreliable guideline to use as a base for deletion. Too many problems relating to the page to use as a notability policy to delete pages on. Pound4Pound (talk) 20:50, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Striking comments due to user now indef blocked for abuse of multiple accounts. Papaursa (talk) 19:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it mirrors WP:NSPORTS#Mixed martial arts for fighters and the fighters' criteria has generally been well accepted as consensus at multiple discussions. The disagreements have come over the notability of individual events but that's irrelevant for this discussion. Jakejr (talk) 20:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even not taking into account WP:MMANOT, he has no fights against notable fighters and no fights in notable events. I also haven't been able to find any information about him from a non-MMA source, so I don't think you can say he passes WP:GNG. CaSJer (talk) 14:07, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cage Warriors is a notable promotion, even with the poor information on MMANOT they at least got that bit right with them. And again to mention he reached the finals of the CWFC Middleweight Tournament to crown a new middleweight champion but getting injured, so I can only imagine he will received a title shot once he is healthy. But that aside, I will look for page relating to him outside of MMA to add to the page and will mention on this AfD what I put on for people to back over the page and make necessary adjustments to their votes. Will take some time but considering this AfD hasn't been going on for long now I got some time to work. Pound4Pound (talk) 14:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He still has no fights for a top tier MMA organization. Jakejr (talk) 20:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And, again, can you really rely on MMANOT to determine a notable MMA promotions position between top and second tier? Cage Warriors have gone on leaps and bounds in improvements since the start of the year, getting a TV deal with Sky Sports, ESPN (for worldwide viewing), bringing in attention from mainstream sources, being one of only a very small number of MMA promotions in general to take their events abroad, the level of talent they got on their shows, I generally believe MMANOT needs improvements all round, not just on events like you say. Recently I made the notable promotions section abit clearer to read between the active and defunct promotions, but so much more needs to be done with it. For a start it is out of date in terms of promotions it doesn't cover in either section so I may start off by being WP:BOLD and add the 5 promotions I mentioned in a different AfD just to get the ball rolling. Second I feel that some second tier promotions have earned the right to be push up to top tier, both active active and defunct. This would be a beginning at least to finally fixing some of the issues that the guideline presents. Pound4Pound (talk) 10:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You remind me of blocked user BigzMMA because he always believed that consensus didn't matter because his judgment was superior to everyone else's. It's OK to be bold, but overriding consensus opinions simply because you disagree with them is not. Jakejr (talk) 20:12, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No fights for a top tier organization means he fails WP:MMANOT and he's not even won a championship of a second tier organization. Mdtemp (talk) 17:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 07:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As others have pointed out, he fails WP:NSPORTS#Mixed martial arts and all of the references are merely fight results. Papaursa (talk) 03:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amin Touati

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Autobiography about an MMA instructor whose chief claim to fame seems to be he studied under Royce Gracie, but notability is not inherited. His tournament record does not meet the notability criteria at WP:MANOTE and the IBJJF website does not show he was ever a competitor at a major championship. The sources are either of questionable reliability (BJJ heroes), not independent, or routine sports reporting. Jakejr (talk) 05:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Jakejr (talk) 05:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This looks like a clear case of WP:NOTINHERITED. Subject doesn't meet martial arts notability criteria and lacks significant independent coverage to show he meets GNG. Mdtemp (talk) 18:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 07:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an autobiography about someone who doesn't meet any notability criteria--MMANOT, MANOTE, or GNG. Astudent0 (talk) 23:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Taekwondo Promotion Foundation

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

The article lacks any independent sources and gives no reason why its subject is notable. The article reads like a press release. Jakejr (talk) 05:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Jakejr (talk) 05:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There was some discussion about this on the Martial Arts Project Talk page and the article Talk Page itself. Basically a national organization for Taekwondo is not notable with the possible exception of it's country of origin. Alos the training centre under construction would be notable. I say weak because there is not much in the article and the organization is too new.Peter Rehse (talk) 05:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I read the article and the discussions mentioned by Peter and I still don't see why this organization is notable. I don't think this is notable any more than every karate organization in Japan is automatically notable. The article is tagged for a lot of problems. I agree with Jakejr that it reads like a press release (or ad) and doesn't show notability. Mdtemp (talk) 18:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 07:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I revisited this and ended up changing my vote to delete from keep (see above). I understand now that this is not an umbrella for Taekwondo such as World Taekwondo Federation or the International Taekwon-Do Federation but some sort of government body with no clear connection to either. It's only claim to notability would occur once the park is constructed and significant events were held.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As I said at WT:WPMA I don't see anything that shows this is a notable organization. The article fails to show notability and needs better sources. Papaursa (talk) 18:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Group 1965

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:12, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Been unable to find reliable sources on this group. Had a lot of content, but I've removed it as promotional, barely sourced, and closely paraphrased. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have been able to find this rather interesting analysis of the group. The group has also had exhibitions in Europe funded by the Japan Foundation (a semi-independent branch of the Japanese government) that did have some press coverage (for instance, here and here). I have the feeling more can be found. Michitaro (talk) 12:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, maybe merge The first version was a copy vio (deleted) and last year I tried to find info for this with very little luck. Note that there isn't even a mention of the group in the BLP Oscar Oiwa, a member. Maybe some of the info can be merged into his article, although a redirect doesn't make sense because he is only one member of the group. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A merge would not make sense since this is a group. Also, my sense of the Japanese art scene is that Makoto Aida is the most famous of these artists. I checked one of the Japanese article databases and found several more articles on them in Tokyojin (a major monthly magazine) (座談会昭和40年会の東京, 23(10)通号258 / 2008.9 /　/ p.120～126), Bijitsu techō (the main art journal in Japan) (Document 昭和40年会in大阪+名古屋ツアー-いったいなにが平成の世を生きる彼らをこんなにも魅力的にしているのか, 52(794) / 2000.10 /　/ p.160～166), and LR (昭和40年会緊急シンポジウム-おまえの何が現代美術(アート)なのか, 通号17 / 2000.1 /　/ p.22～45). The weight of coverage seems to point towards keeping it. Michitaro (talk) 23:56, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 07:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing any evidence of in-depth third-party coverage to verify notability or justify a self-standing Wikipedia article. --DAJF (talk) 11:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional weak keep. By the looks of it, the magazine mentions look quite promising, but without being able to see them, I can't say whether they are actual coverage or just mentions. But with the large number of mentions, I'll assume that they are indeed about the group and thus, it would be the coverage required to pass WP:N. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:11, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Beyond the articles I found above, I found some additional articles in Aera (昭和４０年生まれの展覧会, 1996.7.22 p. 73) and in the Asahi Shinbun (アートの中で過ごす夜　触って寝そべり鑑賞, 2005.11.11, Evening ed. p. 7; タカの絵、対比の妙, morning ed. p. 33). I believe there is enough coverage here to satisfy criterion 3 of WP:ARTIST. Michitaro (talk) 03:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Never Fade Away (Web series)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of notability established through the topical notability guidelines for films or general notability guidelines which require significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 14:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 14:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - With several notable actors, including an Emmy nominated one, I'm rather surprised that there hasn't been at least some coverage of this webseries. However, I searched pretty extensively, and haven't found anything that wasn't first party. With some notable people involved, there's some potential that this can meet notability in the future, but at this point, I'm just not finding the sources. Perhaps it can be userfied until then, at the very least. Rorshacma (talk) 17:30, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 07:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Circuit Bali

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

WP:Speculation. The circuit is only proposed. Connection to other categories is only rumoured and the circuits name appears to have been invented by the article author. Falcadore (talk) 07:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The circuits' name has NOT been invented, as I have read in an outside source that this will be the circuits' name. TollHRT52 (talk) 17:57, 15 August 2012 (AEST)

"I have read in an outside source" really is not good enough. The name isn't in the only sourced in the article. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. 16:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. 16:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Build it, and we will come. Mangoe (talk) 02:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:CRYSTAL, even the circuit's name is not sourced. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE Mark Arsten (talk) 16:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ana Berry

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of established notability in accordance with the topical notability guidelines for entertainers or the general notability guidelines, which require significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. Sources provided and/or found are limited to primary sources and/or indicate a limited background in commercial work or uncredited background/extra casting. Can anyone else find anything that could establish notability here? Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 15:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 07:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:01, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Laode Abdul Hasan

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

Unsourced biography of a living person, not notable, cannot find reliable sources jfd34 (talk) 07:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. 16:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. 16:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 16:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:CREATIVE, WP:BIO, and WP:GNG. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable commentor on a non-notable forum. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of notability, no credible claim to importance in the article. Rather promotional in tone as well. --bonadea contributions talk 16:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
snowball delete ; no evidence of notablility. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; will provide more reliable citation, Gogo Dodo, Orangemike, Bonadea, Staszek Lem, doesnt really know for sure Indonesian people Dark star in ocean (talk) 08:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. SarahStierch (talk) 16:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Punkreas

AfDs for this article:

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

After extensive searching, it appears that the subject of this article is non-notable. (The album links — and sheer volume of releases — should not be taken as indicative of notability either; they, too, suffer from a dearth of references and a lack of notability.) Qwerty Binary (talk) 19:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If the article remains, I suggest that the releases perhaps be merged into a discography section or page or be listed, with a reference to the record label's site (which, hopefully, provides information about the year of release, the track listing, etc.). --Qwerty Binary (talk) 20:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep, how did you do your searches? I know there are some false positives, at any rate these are a little portion of what I found at Google News archives: MTV, Il Giornale), Varese News, Musical News, La Repubblica, Milano Today, Il Corriere della Sera, Varese News again, La Stampa, Rockol, MB News, L'eco di Bergamo, Sky, Rockol again, TeleSanterno, La Stampa again, La Repubblica again. The Corriere della Sera defines the band as "the symbol of Italian punk music of the last 20 years" ([21]). Not to mention they have also multiple book sources, including an encyclopedia, Dizionario completo della Canzone Italiana by Enrico Deregibus.Cavarrone (talk) 07:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I note that the article "Punkreas" is by and large a translation of the "Punkreas" article on the Italian localisation of Wikipedia. As it hasn't made too much of an international impact, I think that is where I take issue with the article; other things can be worked on. As for searching, I did what most would do, and that includes using those nifty quotation marks in those Google searches. --Qwerty Binary (talk) 18:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per WP:MUSIC especially points 1 and 7 - notability isn't confined by national borders, they're clearly notable in Italy given the sources turned up by Cavarrone above (which should be included, especially the quote from Corriere della Sera). The article needs translating by an English speaker, but otherwise I'm not seeing any issue here. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ 14:16, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: noted. I thought notability wasn't confined by geography but more so by culture at large (mostly language). It's good to know this, though! Cheers! --Qwerty Binary (talk) 06:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 07:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Margo Rey

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

At first sight this looks to be a valid article, but the references are all primary sources except one minor appearance on a TV show. IMDB, never a reliable source, shows that she was a voice of a dog in a minor production. The article appears to be intended to create notability for this singer rather than demonstrate notability. Wikipedia may not be used in this manner. If she gains notability then an article may remain here, otherwise not. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence of notability. Google and Google News searches turned up no substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. Any mention is trivial, routine, tangential. This appears to be yet another promotional article created by editors connected in some way with her husband and his business. A similar article on a person associated with her husband was found to be based on fabricated biographical data. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as with her husbands business partner this is all fakery. noclador (talk) 22:07, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons given above. -- Hoary (talk) 00:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not sure if the term "fakery" above was intended to indicate that it's promotional or a set of falsehoods... The facts are actually accurate, but it's poorly referenced by external, reliable sources, so I would expect it will be deleted. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 17:47, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- the "fakery" is probably misapplied to this article. ~~but on her husband's article, some account apparently diliberately conflated two people of the same name and claimed the other's achievments as part of their own.~~ lets try again. the same editor who created much of this article's fluffy contents was found to have, apparently purposefully, conflated her ~~husband's~~ fiance's business partner with another person of the same name and claimed the other's achievements.-- The Red Pen of Doom 18:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have updated this article substantively - and while it won't be nominated for FA any time soon, it's a whole lot better documented than it was when I started. There's no shortage of self-promotion from the subject of this article, her "husband" and the record company, but I believe I've found enough sources to back up most of the info there. Some of it, such as the fact that she was the lead singer of an all-girl rock band in the 80s is impossible to find a source on, though it's in her bio. It is my understanding that they are not yet married, but I don't have any source refuting it and all the interviews they do say that they're married, so I've left it that way. Do with it what you will... Thanks. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 21:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Just came across the AfD to which TRPOD was speaking and as I mentioned, no shortage of self-promotion going on by the record company! Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 22:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with changes I've made (as noted above), I believe someone who has released 3 songs which have hit the top 20 on a Billboard chart and is noted as someone to watch passes WP:GNG. The content about her background activities is allowable by WP:SELFPUB. It appears that this AfD may have been added due to a halo effect because of the "business partner" mentioned by the nom and supported by others and while I'm the first to acknowledge that notability cannot be inherited, neither can "lack of notability". "Beverly Hills Chihuahua", is described above as a "minor production" though it was produced by Disney with a budget of $20m and total gross of $143m, included Drew Barrymore, Jamie Lee Curtis and George Lopez, so I disagree with that characterization. I imagine that if someone footnoted one of those stars with a reference to that film, there may be no objection to its use as a "minor production". I believe this article now passes muster and should be kept. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 14:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep - it appears that before she adopted the professional name of "Margo Rey", she did musicals such as Loesser's "Señor Discretion Himself" and the stage version of "Selena Forever" under her birth name "Margo Reymundo" for which there are what appear to be numerous although brief (seemingly positive) reviews behind paywalls. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

- my 'keep' is 'weak', because conflating two individuals with a similar name is what was behind the "fakery" of the other article. do we know for certain that "Margo Rey" and "Margo Reymundo" are the same person? -- The Red Pen of Doom 11:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 07:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly what I meant by my comment about the halo effect. It seems as though there is a concern that the same people wrote the article just because these two happen to now be in business together, which is merely a suspicion, not based on any evidence yet offered. The question should be do we know for certain that the same people were involved in writing the two articles? Instead, I believe it's rather easy to connect Margo Rey and Margo Reymundo (name similarity aside), by looking at Reymundo's 2004 website and Rey's current website. Unless we believe there was some plot in 2004 to create a website so that in 2012 Wikipedia readers could be tricked, I think the photographic evidence supports that they're the same person. Further, one of the citations in the article (see last 3 paragraphs) tells the story of how Ron White met Margo Rey, through her brother, Alex Reymundo. Thanks. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 10:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

its not "merely a suspicion" that the articles were edited by the same people, the edit history shows (showed before the other was deleted) that they were edited by the same accounts. It was following the edit histories that led to this article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 11:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I truly do not wish to become pedantic (though sometimes I simply cannot help myself), but in the interest of accuracy, I want to point out that no such mention of the other article or it's edit history was made by the nominator, nor did the nominator explain how or why xhe came to the conclusion, so I'm unsure of whether that's what led to this article or not. The first mention of the other article was by Dominus Vobisdu in support of deletion. Given all that, if you're aware of some information that's not included in the nomination as to how the nominator arrived at this article, I'm happy to take your word for it as I cannot see the edit history for the deleted article. In any case, how they came to the article is irrelevant, because even if they were edited by the same people - which could easily raise suspicion and cause investigation of another article - the article is no longer in the same condition it was when the nomination was made. The keep or delete decision should be made based not on what the article was at the time of nomination, but rather on what it is today. Thanks. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 15:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

responded on talk. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (without prejudice to more genuine, independent WP:RS being added from established media). Blogs, listings, and reviews on theatre ticketing sites are not reliable. Interviews are not reliable because the content is supplied by the subject. This only leaves on source [22] which alone does not amount to significant in-depth coverage from multiple sources. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've re-examined the article and still find it lacking in reliable independent sources. Except for the Vegas Sun article, which is light on information about Rey and is actually just an extended concert announcement, the rest are trivial, routine or tangential mentions in blogs and the like. My own searches turned up nothing substantial in independent sources. The publicity material originating from her husband's company seems to be puffery. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question: You don't find Billboard to be a reliable source? Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 12:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable, yes. But it contributes little information and little notability. She had two songs that made it into the top-twenty on the list for "adult contemporary", a relatively minor list. If she made it onto the overall list, or the major lists for pop, rock, etc., I would be more impressed. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would find it helpful if there was greater consistency in your comments. First you state there's only one reliable source and relegate all other noted sources as "trivial, routine or tangential mentions in blogs and the like". And I have to admit, I'm not even sure what you mean by "routine". When someone reviews a performance in a newspaper it is neither puffery nor a concert notification. It does, however stand as verification that the individual does, in fact, perform to paying crowds. When asked, you acknowledge that there is actually more than one reliable source, though apparently Billboard didn't count in the first comment because, by your assessment, it's only a "minor" list. Please help me find the WP guideline or policy that indicates which Billboard charts are notable and which are not. Also, I'd like some help in understanding which policy says that only those songs which achieve a certain ranking on those notable charts count. I understand that the Adult Contemporary doesn't "impress" you, but it might interest you to know that the current Adult Contemporary chart includes songs by Kelly Clarkson, Train, Adele (2 songs), Katy Perry, Colbie Caillat and One Direction, none of which I can imagine are "trivial", regardless of your personal assessment. The lists focus on the formats used by radio stations. To dismiss AC would be something akin to dismissing the "Classical" list because it's not Top 40 - there are hundreds of AC radio stations, serving millions of listeners, so I think it's as notable as any other format. Further, someone who has had 3 songs at a "significant" (deliberately avoiding a specific number) level a Billboard chart seems clearly notable. Lastly, I completely understand (and support!) your reaction to her business partner's article. You'll note that I made no effort to defend that article, because there were zero RS. This is not the same. This article should be evaluated on its own and leave the aura of how it got to be here in the first place behind. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 14:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mitt Romney's tax returns

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

Clear WP:POVFORK per the rationale given at page creation, which was: "split from Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012 to prevent WP:UNDUE issues prior to expansion" Topic not sufficiently notable for standalone article. This article doesn't avoid an UNDUE problem; it creates one. Belchfire-TALK 07:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obvious POV fork. Truthsort (talk) 07:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As I said on the talk page, this is just a POV fork suitable for burying information about Romney's tax returns. Oh, the irony! Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 09:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete. At only 268 words after two weeks of existence, there's clearly no need for a split-out article on this. It can be handled within Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012, moving this text there. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There were good reasons to create a separate article on this subject. When it was in the main article about his campaign it was obvious that a detailed factual article about his taxes was out of place. That it has not been worked on, and has gotten worse rather than better is not a reason to delete it but to improve it. User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Stubs should not remain - this is more silly season stuff. Collect (talk) 12:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree that it might be POV and is not working. Kafka1115 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge. Not enough notability to support a stand-alone article. Merge content into parent article, delete/re-direct/whatever the present article-link. The only reason anyone is interested in this subject is because Romney is running for the US Presidency, so in my opinion this article should be subsumed into Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012. Shearonink (talk) 15:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV fork, not notable. Hot Stop 15:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~'Merge Cwobeel (talk) 15:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)~~'[reply]
Keep - The article has developed substantially since this started, and now has compelling and useful information for readers. Cwobeel (talk) 18:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge some, Delete the rest. It can always be re-started if and when size considerations warrant. Delete. The subject is adequately covered by this new section in the main article about U.S. tax returns. This article up for deletion is primarily an attack article; for example, you'll find accusations against Romney in the lead by the Democratic governor of Maryland, but nothing about those accusations in the article about the governor. The same was true about the accusations by Harry Reid, until I inserted the material in Reid's article (while toning it down and focussing on what Reid said).108.18.174.123 (talk) 15:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. 16:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. 16:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012. Mutter, mutter, mutter... Carrite (talk) 18:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Essentially the same problem as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Roanoke Obama campaign speech. I'll be a bit upset if this is deleted and that survives, however. --BDD (talk) 22:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect to Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012. Per nom. & others, a POVFORK. Does not warrant a standalone article, but is a notable issue in the Romney 2012 campaign.--JayJasper (talk) 22:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, 38 news articles; whether one believes that any of them have significant coverage about the specific subject is debatable. Same can be said if someone creates an article on Obama's college transcripts. Although there are over 1 million regular google hits about the subject, not all are reliable sources, and against it is debatable of those that do fall under RS whether there is enough significant coverage about the subject. There should be an attempt to improve the article before bringing up the article to AfD, to at least support that the subject passes notability guidelines. I would support a merge & redirect at this point to an appropriate article (there are multiple notable subjects if a merge were to occur), however if it can be shown that the subject is clearly independently notable in and of itself I can be persuaded to change my opinion to KEEP.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No. We shouldn't have standalone articles on every campaign attack vector. To the extent this is actually a notable factor in the election, it should be covered in 2012 Presidential election. Ideally, we'd write this stuff after the election, both because it removes the political motivation for editing, and because we'll have a clearer idea of its actual lasting impact, if any. MastCell ^Talk 08:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reason 2012 Roanoke Obama campaign speech‎ should be deleted: it's a POV fork given undue weight by receiving its own article. It should be mentioned as necessary in the campaign article. I'm ambivalent about the need for a redirect. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Articles like this are an embarrassment to the project. Using POV forks to push a political agenda on Wikipedia is not, and never will be acceptable. (despite the fact that it's done blatantly and constantly) Trusilver 16:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unacceptable POV forking of content, placing way too much emphasis on a run-of-the-mill electioneering dispute between camps — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarc (talk • contribs) 18:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it's a bad POV fork in my opinion, as stated above. It does not need a standalone. A wild Rattata (talk) 21:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (hoping for a WP:BOBSLED). Notability is established by the fact that it was rated by PolitiFact.com and is likely to be revisited and rehashed and reexamined for the duration of the campaign. It was also widely reported in the mainstream press. There are reasonable arguments above, saying that we don't want to have an article on every half-baked, debunked accusation that comes out of either political camp. That said, Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories exists on wikipedia because it is notable, not because it is true. Maybe we need an article on half baked political accusations in the 2012 POTUS campaign. Then, after the election we can trim out all the WP:RECENTISM. PS, I like that the article name is NPOV, not "Mitt Romney doesn't pay his taxes." Peace, MPS (talk) 22:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can't see any reason why this is being called a POV fork - it's just the plain simple facts. Romney talks about his tax returns all the time - generally saying that he is not going to release them. Actually, I do object to folks who are very active on the page and on the talk page removing material from the article, and now saying the article should be merged because it is too short. Shame! Smallbones (talk) 20:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - at some point, we have to come to consensus on what individual incidents or issues are notable enough for entry into the project as a separate article. I don't think we are yet at a consensus. Bearian (talk) 02:11, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We could do worse than mimicking Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics. These individual controversies may pass WP:GNG on a superficial level but have a high susceptibility to hijacking and no real WP:PERSISTENCE. Not that there wouldn't be battles over what to include there, but we'd at least corral off the fighting and minimize AfD's resemblance to Bush v. Gore. --BDD (talk) 04:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Obvious POV as stated by others and agree the article should be deleted, not merged. Its WP:Undue weight to a non-notable topic and should not have have its own article and should not be merged as that would also be undue weight. It has a brief mention on the campaign page and that's more than enough to cover it. Its also WP:Recentism. Wikipedia is not a newpaper.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 21:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly don't understand how WP:UNDUE works. It's not an excuse to merely delete information from Wikipedia. -- Kendrick7^talk 08:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Rename to something like "tax return controversy"; while the individual tax returns are not themselves important, the controversy over not releasing them is. The rational for it being a POV fork doesn't hold up since it's not exclusively criticism (ie people are defending him not releasing them). The issue has become substantive enough for there to be polls on it and we can easily keep this article while including a smaller section in the campaign article. CartoonDiablo (talk) 01:07, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no controversy, its fabricated, non-substantive, and petty. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The POV fork still holds. It should be deleted. There could be a neutral article on the subject of presidential tax returns in general and the relevant content could be moved there.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 20:19, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - While there's an impulse to delete does no one notice that there is significant coverage of the issue? Whatever you think of the issue, there is in fact a huge controversy that made major political leaders respond and was wide enough to have multiple public opinion polls about it. CartoonDiablo (talk) 03:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete POV fork. No need for stub stand-alone, one of many minor attack issues in political campaign. Donner60 (talk) 07:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - POV fork. Also Wikipedia is not a newspaper. B-watchmework (talk) 20:50, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the article has been considerably expanded during the past 24 hours. Whether that should affect the outcome of this AfD is another question.108.18.174.123 (talk) 21:05, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's just a fulfillment of the prediction I made when I wrote the deletion nomination. Belchfire-TALK 21:25, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I have added a neutral section about this, at the article on tax returns.[23]108.18.174.123 (talk) 03:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge anything useful and redirect to the subject's article. This is a likely search term on Wikipedia. First Light (talk) 01:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this clearly passes WP:GNG. It's been front page news since at least December, 2011. On all the nightly news shows (including Fox, MSNBC, CNN, CBS, ABC and multiple stories on the BBC, going back to January with a recent spurt), not to mention the NYTimes, Washington Post, LATimes, Business Week, Forbes, New Yorker. Several million search results on Google. If you think it is a POV fork, you need to improve it, adding sourced content, not removing content as was done before. Smallbones (talk) 04:33, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My take on this is that this article is being used to bury details that ought to be in the main article. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:41, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't oppose the article being put in as a full section in the "campaign" article, but it has to go somewhere. The switching places, then deleting material, inserting some truly irrelevant material on Donald Trump, deleting the 2 sentence reference in the campaign article, etc. does make this article look like there is a case of political sharp elbows going around. But it's an election year, and trying to sort out people's motives is not worthwhile IMHO. Smallbones (talk) 15:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the material in this article does have to go somewhere at Wikipedia. But not even Harry Reid's accusations regarding the tax returns are allowed in the Harry Reid article.[24] Why dump it all on Romney, and none of it on Reid? There is further material about the history of releasing tax returns here (doubtless it too will be deleted in due course, since it isn't dumped on the Romney articles). This subject warrants a paragraph at the Romney 2012 campaign article. Bottom line, this article now up for deletion is not NPOV, and it's redundant (if the info were put where it belongs).108.18.174.123 (talk) 17:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but POV and "redundant" are not reasons to delete. This is a major issue in the Presidential campaign, with the Republicans saying that it is the only Democratic issue. This material will certainly be permanently used on Wikipedia, even if 10 weeks from now, folks start asking themselves "Why didn't Romney just release some more of his tax returns and get an extra 1% of the vote?". Students in tax classes will be reviewing the only available tax return from a private equity multimillionaire. Or people will be wondering why a sitting president doesn't release his current tax returns, as every president has since Carter. In short, somebody in a US presidential campaign seems to be telling a whooper here, and it is very likely to come out who, sooner or later. It would be nice to have the original notable material included in Wikipedia. Smallbones (talk) 18:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, discredited accusations against a public figure, like the accusations made by Harry Reid, belong in the article of the person making the accusation. I tried to do so, and tried to link to the Reid article from the 2012 Romney campaign article, but was repeatedly reverted. This article about Romney's tax returns is a POV fork, and that's plenty of reason to delete it.108.18.174.123 (talk) 18:13, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Michelle Obama's arms passed WP:GNG too. Passing GNG doesn't automatically make something encyclopedic or appropriate. Trusilver 16:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did she have sharp elbows? Smallbones (talk) 18:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a clear POVFORK. This is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. This article can be re-visited after the election when there is more perspective about the importance of this issue. Letting partisans hijack our encyclopedia to promote their political feuds is certainly something we should stop right now. Yobol (talk) 18:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My reason for originally splitting this off from the original article was to prevent that article from being overwhelmed by WP:UNDUE issues, per WP:PRESERVE.[25] Such a split is entirely permissible per WP:CFORK: "as an article grows, editors often create Summary style spin-offs or new, linked article for related material. This is acceptable, and often encouraged, as a way of making articles clearer and easier to manage." Sure enough, I made a wise decision. We could merge everything back, but I won't stand for deletionists arguing Undue should that occur, per WP:ENC. -- Kendrick7^talk 08:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP As to keep it from overwhelming the MR page. 216.81.94.71 (talk) 19:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The obsidian wall

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

Article about a self-published e-book. Wiki article was written by the author. Promotional in nature. Qualifies for deletion under WP:SNOW. Man way 06:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find any sources on Google News or Books. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 06:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I removed much of the promotional language, and cut the article in size by more than half. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 06:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are zero reliable sources for this book. A search for the title and author brings up a paltry 68 hits, most of which are merchant sites, this Wikipedia article, and mentions of the AfD. No notability here.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the by, I know we've all stated that we need to have a speedy category for books that don't appear to be notable- anyone know where to go to start working on this?Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But of course - that would be WT:CSD. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although you will need to search the archives - it has come up before a few times. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:08, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Good luck to the author with the book and everything, but the work fails WP:N, to say nothing of WP:CONFLICT and WP:NOTPROMOTION. Dave.Dunford (talk) 18:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. 16:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was A10 by Jimfbleak. NAC—S Marshall T/C 07:10, 15 August 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Matthew Yvorik

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

The only ghits for this author are two recently created Wikipedia articles by the same author. Nothing else, nor in Gbooks nor Gscholar. Possible hoax. Recommend delete. Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Operation Homefront#Military Child of the Year Award. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Goetz

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Subject fails WP:ONEEVENT. Zaldax (talk) 02:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Come to think of it, I'm not sure why I didn't just A7 this; it's pretty likely this is just a vanity bio, especially given the nature of subsequent edits. Any chance of a SNOW close? Zaldax (talk) 03:37, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. In general we treat significant awards as evidence of notability. Given that the award was given by the first lady and there is a fair bit of coverage, she appears to be notable. Not sure if ONEEVENT applies to an award... Hobit (talk) 00:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 03:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or possibly redirect to Operation Homefront#Military Child of the Year Award. The award doesn't seem to be all that significant, and it doesn't inherit notability by being awarded by the First Lady. I'm sure she must give out lots of awards. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the redirect is a fine idea unless some other sources pop up. Hobit (talk) 17:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE Mark Arsten (talk) 16:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OOoCon

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

Recommending deletion, as subject lacks significant coverage from reliable third party publications. No matches on Google News Archives or other suitable aggregators that I could find. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 22:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 03:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE Mark Arsten (talk) 16:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Berman

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not appear to pass the general notability guideline. Only primary sources available. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 19:06, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 19:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:50, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 03:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE Mark Arsten (talk) 16:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Showmedo

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated for deletion by 108.45.142.234 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for the following reason: "Non-notable organization. Links in bottom are a mixture of blogs, "we publish anything" web magazines, and brief lip service in very very specialized Python-dedicated areas". Note: the IP user later added a PROD tag (as they were unable to create the discussion - I've taken it back to the deletion nomination but not contesting the PROD. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 12:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 03:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE Mark Arsten (talk) 03:15, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maggie Haberman

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 16:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable reporter. There's a lot of stuff by her, but nothing about her. Clearly a wedding announcement doesn't create notability. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 07:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 03:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, seconded Alf.laylah.wa.laylah. Toasty (talk) 14:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WAND Pepsi Sports Challenge

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:35, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem like a notable event to me. AutomaticStrikeout 01:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep Thanks for the feedback, I really appreciate it. I'm relatively new here so I guess I probably should have written the article in sandbox with all the references and everything before putting it up. I disagree that this article isn't noteworthy. The pepsi sports challenge is a very popular television segment in Central Illinois featured on network tv. I feel if the For the Love of Ray J (season 2) can have an article, so can the WAND Pepsi Challenge. See http://www.wandtv.com/category/205568/s to learn more about it. Again thanks for yoru feedback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benmoff1 (talk • contribs) 02:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's what this is for, to determine if it should be included or not. If you wish to cast a vote to keep this article, just add the word keep in bold text before your above comment. AutomaticStrikeout 03:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 02:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Firstly, the existence of other article that may or may not seem more notable has no purchase on this AfD. Saying that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS won't save an article because all that might mean is that the other article just hasn't been merged, deleted, or redirected yet. Where this event (the Pepsi Challenge) suffers is that it's really not covered by any reliable sources other than the channel that puts on the event. This coverage can't be used to show notability because it's considered to be a primary source. It just can't show notability. Because of this, the event just isn't notable enough to have it's own page. The only thing I might suggest is that it gets a very, very brief mention in the WAND article and this page redirect to there.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jsharpminor (talk) 19:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Malayan

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

I am unable to find any external sources verifying the existence of this language. Google search for "Greater Malayan" brings up this article and some results about a deer. The three-letter language code does not exist in the ISO databases, and it's the same one that was used in a previous article, Asyiengarian language, which was written by the same author and which was deleted as a hoax (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asyiengarian language).. ... discospinster _talk 01:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I support to delete as the claim is not supported by any reliable sources. The terms used in Wikipedia Bahasa Melayu also did not exist and I never heared such name (in Malay). I suspect the author is using sock puppet to bloster his claims. Yosri (talk) 02:10, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. I do not know nearly enough about the subject to tell if this is a hoax or perhaps original research. What I do know is that the cites provided are totally inadequate to validate anything said in it. It could be the original editor is totally genuine, and this is a specialised subject with few sources available, but I'm afraid Wikipedia needs verifiablity for the article to remain. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. 16:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverifiable and probably MADEUP. Angr (talk) 17:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unquestionably a hoax. None of the "principles" of this language have productive Google searches. The "Karaka Principle" is an especially transparent hoax; the Malay language (an Austronesian language) is in no way "derived from Sanskrit" (an Indo-European language). Furthermore, the list of ISO 639 codes shows that the wia code claimed for this language is in fact unassigned. Furthermore, the content of this article, including these nonsense principles, has appeared in Wikipedia before at the hands of the same author, when he attempted to introduce a section on the equally fictional Asiangarian language into the Malay language article (see diff). So far as I can determine, no contributions of this editor have been constructive or factual. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a blatant hoax. Regarding Sanskrit, Malay and some related languages do have Sanskrit loan words (Javanese in particular is swimming with them) but the languages are not "based" in Sanskrit. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Same nonsense as last time, and block editor if he does it again. (I'd already warned him about hoaxing, and this time added {{uw-hoax}}.) — kwami (talk) 08:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Controlled Delay

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

Article on proposed programming technique not yet in use and therefore non-notable. The last sentence is the give-away. (And that the article on it has, a/c Google scholar, been cited so far by one person only [26] DGG ( talk ) 01:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article is not about a programming technique but about a new AQM algorithm. Article cited for it was published in ACM Queue and reprinted in CACM (which is peer reviewed), both extremely reliable sources for computing science and software engineering (and on the force of those two facts meets WP:NSOFT -- reliable sourcing, totally new technology means significant). The algorithm discussed has been implemented and is available for all to use and report upon (and has been picked up by early adopters). And I just came across a nice little remark that CoDel has been integrated into the Linux kernel mainline already, so if that isn't use I don't know what is... -- BenTels (talk) 01:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Extra comment: Aside from the above, the nominator has completely misread that last sentence. It doesn't say that CoDel is not in use (as in not implemented); it says that CoDel is in use and its behavior is being observed in actual use to see if it lives up to expectations. -- BenTels (talk) 09:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. 16:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"not yet in use and therefore non-notable."

So that's a whole bunch of pruning needed to NASA then!

keep This is a solid technique and article about it. It appears encyclopedic. At least one author is well-known. The question reduces to "Does it meet WP:N?" There are sources. Some are SPS, some not. Even though some of these SPS author publications are going out through erudite channels like the ACM and MIT. So N now seems to reduce to, "Do we consider Jim Gettys to be a RS on this topic?" I'd have to say yes, so keep. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added two more reliable sources to the article (there are at least three now). These were not hard to find - you just need to search for "CoDel". --Kvng (talk) 14:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Toad Speak Dictionary

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:33, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unremarkable, non-notable booklet included with a DVD box set. I would nominate for Speedy Deletion, but A7 policy doesn't appear to cover unremarkable books(?) Zaldax (talk) 01:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:10, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. 16:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. 16:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, and WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivial in-universe element Cambalachero (talk) 12:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lacking notability. Cavarrone (talk) 09:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Example (musician). Mark Arsten (talk) 00:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Evolution of Man

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Contested prod. Album by a notable band, except that it hasn't been released yet, which makes this article violate WP:CRYSTAL. No non-primary sources used in the article. Delete without prejudice against recreation (perhaps even an undeletion) once the critical reviews start coming in. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not yet notable, or Redirect to the article on the band. That way the content and history will be preserved in case this becomes notable after it is relased and critical reviews are available. DES ^(talk) 00:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 02:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The redirect target should, of course, be Human evolution. Someone who types "The Evolution of Man" into the search box would be looking for that, not an article about some recording artist or other. When the album is released, the corresponding article should be called The Evolution of Man (Album).—S Marshall T/C 07:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:43, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Great White of Wildwood NJ

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

This stub about a Rollercoaster does not appear to meet WP:N, and lacks context as well. I suggest merging the name into a List of Rides at Morey's Piers, and deleting the article. Zaldax (talk) 00:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC) Zaldax (talk) 00:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability, fails WP:GNG. The sources mentioned are not reliable. -- Luke (Talk) 03:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep and Rename. With all due respect, rcdb.com references are considered to be reliable and independent sources. The article could use a bit a clean-up, and it definitely needs to be renamed ~~(over an old expired prod at Great White (roller coaster))~~, but there are plenty of sources in the Google News archive and in Google Books. example that it took me 30 seconds to find IronGargoyle (talk) 01:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If the article is kept and re-named, it should be renamed to The Great White (Morey's Piers). There is already a coaster named The Great White at Sea World San Antonio. "The" is included in the name on its park listing (although not on the rcdb.com listing). IronGargoyle (talk) 02:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep – Appears to just meet WP:GNG. Source examples include:

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As a large wooden rollercoaster this is a landmark and the object of published coverage. Article needs to be retitled Great White (rollercoaster) or some such. Carrite (talk) 18:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, Edd n Eddy's Big Picture Show

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a procedural listing from a recently closed deletion review. The userspace draft under review was considered substantially different than previously deleted versions (to avoid CSD G4 and allow unprotection), but there were still substantial concerns expressed in the DRV over the quality of sourcing (e.g., trivial mentions, non-independence) and the notability. As this is a procedural listing, I am neutral. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Ed, Edd n Eddy episodes#Film I'm still not seeing any good sources in this iteration of the article, which remains 60% of a long plot summary already concisely described in the redirect target proposed in one paragraph. The best source is the USPTO filing, and even that really can't tell us anything except it has its LoC filing. TVBytheNumbers has been a questionable source for television and ratings articles in the past because of site staff synthesis of ratings, the iTunes link shouldn't be there (WP:ADVERT), source #7 from Animation World describes "big ratings" but doesn't give the actual numbers, and #4 is an unfiltered Cartoon Network press release which cannot be counted on for neutrality. Credits cites are WP:OR. We have given more than enough time (three years) for this to develop into at least a good stub and it can't get there with these sources. Per the result at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Eds are Coming, the Eds are Coming (an hour-long episode of this series), a short plot summary in the "List of" article should suffice for most general readers. Nate • (chatter) 02:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. 16:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. 16:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. 16:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per improved sourcing since last AFD, or at least redirect and protect again... but this time to List of Ed, Edd n Eddy episodes#Film just as this was similarly redirected after AFD #2. Please see the recent DRV, the result there being to allow the redirect to be unprotected and the article returned to AFD for new consideration. My opinion is that notability enough for a separate article is still pretty thin, but I wil grant that it is better than last time this was here. As the original redirect target has been removed through editing and no longer exists, this new redirect option makes sense to me if not kept. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could this be used?: Link. Though I don't get how these ratings work. :) --Khanassassin ☪ 17:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No... as it tells us at the top of the article that it is a press release. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Don't see why it should be deleted. Highly sourced information here. See deletion review. TBran dl ey 03:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, deleted in previous AfD as unsourced, now this concern was adressed... and the article looks quite fine for a keep, IMHO. Cavarrone (talk) 09:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No good reason to delete this; it's informative and like many entries it will be updated and improved. Keep this please.Gamnos (talk) 18:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. The Reception section material sourced from TV by the Numbers—all but the first sentence—is a nearly word-for-word copy of the original, a clear violation of WP:COPYVIO. A redirect would also be okay, so long as any Reception material incorporated into the destination article undergoes heavy trimming and extensive rephrasing. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio of a single sentence should carry a deletion? I think it is an easily addressable problem, and you yourself could fix the sentence so to make it more different from the original (sadly I cannot as I am not English native and the final result would be surely poor). Cavarrone (talk) 20:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was the entire section except for the first short sentence, which was from two different sources that I didn't check. Or, to put it another way, this is about a third of the non-plot material in the article, which was already (as noted by others) plot-heavy. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:13, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it is not one sentence but two sentences... that does not change the point that this issue is easily fixable by everyone that is enough confident in English to slighty change the construction/wording of these two sentences. Cavarrone (talk) 21:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think your attitude toward copyvio is a bit too cavalier. And, I've just discovered, it's worse than I thought: the bulk of the first paragraph of Production has some nearly identical phrases to the ToonZone source. That leaves precious little that isn't either Plot or close paraphrase. As such, I'm changing my Delete to Strong Delete. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. This article isn't ready yet, but that can be changed. JC ^{Talk to me} _{My contributions} 22:49, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] Le Neve, John (1854). Fasti Ecclesiae Anglicanae. Vol. 2. p. 69. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)

[2] Willis, Browne (1755). The history and antiquities of the town, hundred, and deanry of Buckingham. Vol. 2. p. 74. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)

[1]

[2]