Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 February 10

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 9 February	11 February >

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 keep. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 00:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nickelodeon (Europe)

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

Pure list of programs that are the same as the original channel. Finealt (talk) 22:11, 10 February 2014 (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/2014 February 10. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 22:39, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rationale doesn't fit with content of article as shows aren't even mentioned, and article just describes the various networks it's carried on in Europe. However, once and for all, please kill the flags per WP:MOSFLAGS at the very least. Nate • (chatter) 04:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:L as suitable for navigation to various articles on different nations' Nickelodeon. There are references to news sources, and many more stories about Nickelodeon's European channels can be found in European and American media/entertainment publications. Rationale is invalid, as stated, so I suggest the nominator withdraws and reconsiders. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:10, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Finealt, I'm not sure what exactly you think you're doing but as far as I can see from your edit history you are systematically removing substantial amounts of (largely correct and uncontested) content from articles, and issuing warnings to anyone who reinstates that information. You're removing information from articles which is relevant to one particular territory, then citing the lack of remaining information as reason to delete or merge the articles. You're wrongly making the blanket claim that all these international channels show the same programmes as the US parent (that is not true) and in at least one case you've removed an article entirely (Nickelodeon Switzerland) based on your own entirely wild claim that there is no such channel and that viewers in that country watch the French and German channels instead - which is nonsense. You wiped Nick Jr. (UK and Ireland) and replaced it with a redirect to the US Nick Jr channel. You've removed a list of presenters from Nickelodeon (UK & Ireland) which is wholly specific to that territory, and again presumably on the basis of this, you'll then claim that the remaining article is insufficiently different from the US parent that it too should be deleted. Also, WP:NOTVGUIDE which you cite as a reason for removing information, does not actually prohibit plain lists of television programmes. In addition you have removed almost every international channel from Nickelodeon (international), leaving this article as one of the handful left, while also moving more information out of country-specific articles into this one, and are now proposing to delete THIS article as well! You're clearly not an expert, and your impressions are so mistaken, and being used to justify so much content and article deletions, that I have grave concerns about the effect you're having on the articles you're editing. Is it possible that you could check your impressions before making rash deletions, and perhaps discuss them with other members of the WIkipedia community first? With the best attempt in the world to Assume Good Faith, it's hard to see your edits as achieving anything other than significant damage which will take editors considerable time to recover from and fix. Bonusballs (talk) 23:48, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per above. Keenan202 (talk) 19:40, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Finealt, I highly advise you to read WP:MOSFLAGS. I have reverted your last article edit not only because you re-added the flags (which add nothing but decoration), but removed any links to the European networks itself in an attempt to null this article's purpose. That kind of large change must absolutely be discussed on the talk page before ever being done. Nate • (chatter) 23:34, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. slakr^\ talk / 13:59, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nickelodeon (Africa)

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

Pure list of programs that are the same as the original channel. Finealt (talk) 22:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced in any way, and article seems to have been wholesale taken over by the IP crufters prevalent with children's television articles. We need sources before a weak keep can even be thought of. Nate • (chatter) 04:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to Keep Based on nominator's rash of Nickelodeon noms without much WP:BEFORE done (and subsequent block), I pull my recommendation to delete this article, and looking back most of the edits have been done by gnomy IPs just doing good adding the feed's shows carried rather than what the nominator wanted us to believe. I do not support wool-pulling noms meant to mislead me towards delete as the only course of action. Nate • (chatter) 23:51, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's another AfD nomination for Nickelodeon (Europe). Should these nominations be addressed jointly? TheBlueCanoe 07:20, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- They might be named the same but they have different layouts; Europe mainly explains the various feeds, this ostensibly should be the same but was turned into another 'anything goes' list of shows article by the usual group of IP editors who just seem to be here to play 'fantasy TV network', using an article they know few will catch them on unlike the Western Hemisphere and Europe articles. Nate • (chatter) 02:09, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I take back what I said above; the nominator clearly wanted delete votes based on a malformed and untrue reason for deletion. Nate • (chatter) 23:51, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 05:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Solomon Curtis

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

A rather obvious autobiography (several separate WP:SPAs in play) for a teenager who is a member of a couple of politicial-wannabe groups. Guy (Help!) 21:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete for obvious lack of political notability. Mangoe (talk) 21:13, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Self-promotion and lack of notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of notability. Northern Antarctica (talk) Previously known as AutomaticStrikeout 21:31, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable "Youth Parliament" member. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 20:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly a self-serving bio for an unelected politician. Fails GNG and the SNG low bar (high bar?) for politicians. Carrite (talk) 19:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Meets WP:CORPDEPTH as per Bearian Deville (Talk) 02:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bregal Sagemount

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

Nothing but press releases. accepted at AfC nevertheless. As a very general guide, private equity firms with assets of less than $1 billion are very unlikely to be notable--not that this is a guideline precisely, but most AfD discussions have ended up that way. DGG ( talk ) 02:58, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments on the Bregal Sagemount article. Always happy to be working to make this a better article and would appreciate some feedback on how to do so. A few things to highlight:

The reviewer mentions that there are nothing but press releases in the article; I'm not sure where this comes from, as the only references (save one link to the Bregal Sagemount website) are to articles written in the reputable financial press (for example, Bloomberg). No press releases included.

The other comment relates to the size of the fund, with $1 billion being a guideline for whether or not a fund is notable. I'm not sure how this guideline has developed over time or how it originated, but I do think it is somewhat odd. Many firms that do not raise $1 billion+ funds would be considered notable to those familiar with the industry. To take an extreme example, Sequoia Capital, one of the worlds most well-known private equity / venture capital firms, only raised a $1 billion+ fund in 2009 after investing across several smaller funds for years in companies such as Apple, Google, Cisco, Zappos, and PayPal.

Thanks much!

Michaelkosty (talk) 23:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Bloomberg references says only that Yoon left his previous position. It does not even mention this company. 'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 21:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 17:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 20:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards weak keep is not an example of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources? The $1 billion cutoff seems completely arbitrary. If this fund is allocated and they add a second of equal size (meeting the $1 billion threshold) will the firm then be deemed notable? Listen, it's a new firm led by significant people in the industry and it's making some waves. $500 million isn't chump change and it will be interesting to see how their investments pan out (or don't). I think the subject is worth including and will almost certainly become more notable as there are additional developments and coverage of their investments and funding operations. Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Candleabracadabra. According to WP:CORPDEPTH, I think it passes notability. The 1/5 Billion line is not set in stone, to garble my metaphors. Bearian (talk) 17:23, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:23, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2011–12 Tercera División

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

No attempt at prose; non-professional football competition. Fails WP:NSEASONS and WP:NOTSTATS. No evidence of significant coverage. C 679 19:13, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 19:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable sports competition. Giant Snowman 19:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 20:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 20:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, in no way a "top professional league" as required by NSEASONS. Fenix down (talk) 12:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. – Pee Jay 20:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HappyBird

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

Delete- False claims and copyright infringement Fails to explain why page can be included as an encyclopedic subject. Seems to be promotional in nature than encyclopedic value. With further research it is clear that manufacturer of company is ANGEL (https://www.iamhappybird.com/) where page creator has listed Digital Angel (http://www.digitalangel.com/) of United States which can be copyright infringement as they are two different companies. Ireneshih (talk) 11:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment Copyright infringement is not handled through AfD as a rule, nor do I see any copyright infringement here. What text is being improperly copied and where? Nor do I see any "false claims". If there is an error in the name of the company, that should be corrected. Is "Angel" simply short for "Digital Angel" or is it an error or are the two related in some way? we should find out if possible, but none of those are reasons for deletion. The article as it stands is stating apparent facts, not making promotional claims. It may be that those facts do not have sufficient relaible sources supporting them, in which case we should correct that if possible, and if that is not possible, THEN and only then would deletion be appropriate. Ireneshih, have you gone through the steps at WP:BEFORE prior to the nom? DES ^(talk) 14:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- follow up The page https://www.iamhappybird.com/terms/ lists the firm's legal name as "Angel Digital Pty Ltd". So does the page <https://www.iamhappybird.com/warranty/ >, and I don't find any page on the iamhappybird.com that uses just ANGEL. Where exactly does this form appear? DES ^(talk) 15:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 2 of 3 references are press releases and the other one may be as well. Fails to come close to demonstrating [WP:Notability]]. Even if notable, promotional tone suggest WP:STARTOVER may be best. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:46, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per davidwr. No copyright infringement as far as I can see, though. --Yamla (talk) 15:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This page should stay, it is about a company which manufactures devices which are intended to facilitate student and especially designed to replace there school bags.
Check references which further elaborate it

http://www.independentschoolparent.com/health/help-protect-your-childs-back-with-a-digital-backpack

http://www.mobile-ent.biz/development/android/the-digital-schoolbag-that-banishes-back-pain/042817

it has been discussen on BBC, http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01ph4pc

Olexazale (talk) 15:29, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Procedurally extended until 18:30 17 February 2014 (UTC) due to improper original listing.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Olexazale: regarding the 3 references above: 1 is already on the article. The video is unavailable to me. A link to a working copy or transcript would be very helpful. I have commented on these references and on the 3 existing references in the article on the article's talk page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are at least two sources - one that is in the article and one that is not but which is mentioned above - which may help demonstrate notability, provided they are truly independent and reliable. Unfortunately, both include quotes from a press release and both seem promotional in tone and purpose. The video source listed above is "to be determined" as I am unable to see it and do not have access to a transcript. See the article talk page for details. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 20:11, 10 February 2014 (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/2014 February 11. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 01:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This may be a mistake, as I included it in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 February 10 in the cleanup yesterday. I will notify Cyberpower678 (the bot owner) on his talk page shortly. I have no objections to a further procedural delay of the close until Feb. 18th. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:12, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article reads like advertising copy, and the company doesn't have the substantial third-party coverage I'd expect from a firm that met WP:CORP. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. slakr^\ talk / 14:28, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jimi Hendrix: Canadian drug charges and trial

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

This was an extreme case of pointiness, a content fork created for the sole purpose of justifying the use of a non-free image, File:Jimihendrix1969mug.jpg. Excruciating detail is being given to a minor incident of a drug bust at the border, this should not have been spun out of Jimi Hendrix, where the pre-meddled-with version was 2 paragraphs + a sentence, more than enough for this incident. If there wasn't a big brouhaha over the image being removed form the main Hendrix article, this spinout would never have been created. Tarc (talk) 18:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note, relevant discussions;

Tarc (talk) 18:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you at least see the massive AGF fail? Why didn't it occur to you that I honestly assumed that the issue with contextual significance was remediated by the creation of a stand-alone article, which I still say is justified? Also, if the premise of your accusations of pointiness is that creating the article was an "end-around" way of saving the image from deletion, then don't you also see that deleting the article is an "end-around" way of getting a FFD mulligan? You shouldn't be deleting this article to jeopardize the image anymore than I should write an article to save it from deletion; not that I did that. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It wasn't a minor event; Hendrix faced 20 years in prison for smuggling heroin across international borders! Further, virtually all sources agree that the drugs were planted on Hendrix and that the bust had been set-up. So, I fail to see how the biggest star in North America being framed for drug smuggling is not notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. Per WP:GNG: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Tarc is jumping to some wild conclusions here (remember AGF). There is so much that can be said about this historical and interesting event that it cannot be done justice at Jimi Hendrix without creating a WP:UNDUE situation. The article easily meets WP:EVENTCRIT and WP:GNG, and when its done it will be 5,000+ words or more with 12–24 reliable secondary sources. This is one of the most notable events in the life of Jimi Hendrix and I've seen articles of one paragraph and two cites that were kept. I created this article in much the same way that I created Death of Jimi Hendrix. There is so much to say and so little space to say it at the overview article. WP:POINTY is irrelevant if this incident meets the general notability guidelines, which it absolutely does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GabeMc (talk • contribs) 18:24, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Delete - Tarc's reasoning is spot on for the pointy-ness of the article's creation. On a more technical level, most of the content was originally part of Jimi Hendrix to spin out here, but I don't know how well the trail of attribution is. That said, as the article title is not a reasonable search term, so a history merge may be appropriate here to keep attribution, even if the bulk of the content is removed later (ala to the pre-meddled version). It may barely meet the GNG, but there was no reason to separate it out from the Hendrix article just to justify the use of NFCC (and where its use is still of highly dubious nature since the mugshot is not a significant subject of discussion). --MASEM (t) 18:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:Merge and delete is possible, but WP:Merge and delete#History fixing (history merging) is the worst of the methods due to WP:How to fix cut-and-paste moves#Parallel versions. There are numerous interleaved revisions (e.g., GabeMc's edits) that will appear in the page history as large additions or removals. WP:Merge and delete#Record authorship and delete history works well with few contributors – predominantly GabeMc with edits from Cullen328 and a few others. This spin-off article does not comply with WP:Copying within Wikipedia. Flatscan (talk) 05:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Delete Can we put this to rest, and just delete the image? This fork causes UNDUE and a host of other issues. Werieth (talk) 18:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article not only easily satisfies the WP:GNG, it is a well-written and referenced WP:SPINOFF of the Hendrix article. It is not a WP:POVFORK, as it written from a neutral POV to begin with. I do not believe the creation of this article was "pointy" - it certainly is not disruptive. Doc talk 02:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not pertinent to the AfD

We keep going back to this notion that an non-free image must itself be the subject of extended discussion in order to be valid. I don't know where this is being gleaned from except for NFCI#'s8 & 9. This is not a case where that is being claimed. And the second part of NFCI#8 applies to this image. Remind me again why I haven't wasted my time with non-free images in years, will you? Nevermind. Doc talk 19:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Wind Cries Keep: A clearly notable and well-covered incident in the life of one of the most important personalities in rock music, who was well known for his history of drug [ab]use. It warrants a spinoff article, even if it didn't have one before and even if the new page was only created as the result of an editor trying to justify the use of a non-free image. There is nothing undue here. Along with the three separate discussions plus the one below, this AfD is forumshopping for removal of the image, and the editor who nominated it is being just as pointy as the editor who created the article. Ivanvector (talk) 20:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no forumshopping here. This article was created under pointy terms. --MASEM (t) 20:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - So, if the editor's intent is judged as pointy the created article no longer meets WP:EVENTCRIT and WP:GNG? That's some pretty pathetic logic, Masem. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - The Hendrix article passed FAC just fine with 2 para + change about the trial and without this article existing. That's a pretty clear sign that the level of detail then was more than sufficient. The only reason this article exists is that those fighting to try to justify a NFC image added tons of information of trivial detail beyond those two paragraphs as create this much information. This doesn't merit it appropriate because it is written like news line (a timeline of events and less about the impact). Two paragraphs were fine before, you don't need a full article for that. --MASEM (t) 21:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, that's your personal opinion and as far as I can tell you have never read more than a few lines about Hendrix, so how would you even know? You should not be giving content advice on topics about which you know absolutely nothing. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Why was the article fine at FAC and not now? Again, I need to stress that the bulk of the information was added to Hendrix' article by those fighting to keep the image and weighed it down there. And it doesn't matter what I do or don't know about Hendrix, I'm looking at the overall quality and process going on. --MASEM (t) 21:20, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Masem, a topic like Jimi Hendrix could easily justify 25,000 words or more, but if you know anything about FAC, then you know that's simply too long per WP:SIZE. Per WP:SPLITTING, an article of this size is a good candidate for sub-articles, of which Hendrix has a few. So, just because an article passed FAC does not automatically mean that there isn't anything more notable that could possibly be written if the total words were not an issue, as they aren't at the new article. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:44, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        No, there's no size issue here. 50k is where one can start considering but it is not required (that's 100k). The problem is that the extra details far exceed appropriate content for an encyclopedia. The two paras + change was sufficient before, this is not the case here. --MASEM (t) 23:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        I think Masem has inadvertently identified exactly what the problem is with his whole approach, to wit, he prefers to argue "process" over the "substance" of the article which he appears to admit that he doesn't actually know anything about. Although I have personally never edited this article, I fully agree with the other editors in here who have been major contributors to it. Process for process sake should never be allowed to trump content which, after all, is what readers come to Wikipedia to get. If material is relevant and reliably sourced it should be included. On line encyclopedias are different than print publishing as they are made available digitally and are therefore are not restricted by the physical constraints print publishing. Masem is, of course, free to argue his position as to his views on process which others are free to disagree with and let consensus prevail. But when it comes to substance he should offer very considerable deference to those who have been developing and building the article for many years when it comes to substance over process. Centpacrr (talk) 23:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and more but there are numerous things it is not. Regurgitation of news reports without analysis is one of those things. There is something on the impact of the trial on Hendrix' life, and this was suitably within the original article before the expansion to try to justify the image. If you take out the extraneous news reports (Verifyable but of trivial detail for an encyclopedia), there's little left here. --MASEM (t) 00:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Of the 25 foot note sources cited, 22 are to eight different books, one is from Rolling Stone, one if from The Torontoist, and one is from The New York Times. Six additional books and four documentary films are also referenced at the end of the article so I have no idea where you come up with the idea that this article is based on the "regurgitation of news reports without analysis". With respect, sir, this line of argument is completely empty, and this entire AfD strikes me as petty, unjustified, little more than additional forum shopping, and frankly a waste of time. Centpacrr (talk) 00:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong KEEP - When Mr. Hendrix was publicly arrested at Toronto Pearson Airport in May, 1969, he was a high profile public figure in the midst of his all too brief lead artist musical career which lasted little more than four years from when he formed his own band in 1966 until his untimely death in London from an overdose of barbiturates in 1970 at age 27. His Toronto arrest, booking, indictment, seven months of being under threat of incarceration if convicted, and his three-day trial were clearly a very significant and personally stressful episode for Mr. Hendrix which negatively affected his life and career. The principal public record documenting any arrest and booking is a legally mandated booking photograph (or "mugshot") taken during the formal booking process, and the image in question therefore constitutes the only identifiable contemporaneous such record of his arrest available to illustrate and augment this article. His arrest received considerable coverage in print and broadcast media at the time, and has been covered in subsequent published books and articles in the years since.

The statement in the somewhat petty deletion nomination above that "If there wasn't a big brouhaha over the image being removed form the main Hendrix article, this spinout would never have been created." is true, but so what? That is exactly how much of the Wikipedia Project is built. Since nobody is "assigned" anything to write in the project, its development depends on individual editors becoming interested in a topic or sub topic, tracking down the reliable sources, building an entry, and then the community adds and expands it. Just because his arrest and the subsequent legal process leading to his trial and acquittal was only a few sentences before the recent discussions is a red herring.

The current Hendrix article is now over 16,000 words long. When it was started in 2001 it was barely 400 words so over the past 13 years it has grown in length and detail by some forty fold! I dare say millions of published words have been written about Mr. Hendrix over the past half century and Amazon alone lists 24 published books about him. That being the case, it seems to me that a 1,500 word article with one illustration about this clearly significant episode in Mr. Hendrix's life is hardly excessive. Instead this proposal seems to be little more that yet another new attempt at forum shopping to find another way to attempt to delete a long standing image for which there is considerable support to retain as has been demonstrated in the many earlier discussions going back as far as 2011 which together have now consumed approaching 55,000 words in length.

Instead of adding another five or ten thousands more words, let us instead just close this thinly disguised attempt to find another excuse to delete this image, be thankful that an editor has been willing to expand the coverage of this element of Mr. Hendrix’s life by taking the time and effort to create and develop this well sourced and relevant sub-article, and then we all move on to other more productive areas to expand and improve the project. Centpacrr (talk) 20:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – As far as I can see, this article easily meets WP:EVENTCRIT and WP:GNG and is easily one of the most notable events in Hendrix' life. It is wholly usual to separate notable events from confirmed WP articles into their own page, such as we do with discographies. Cassianto ^Talk 20:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This was not one of the most important events in his life--for real. There is no encyclopedic point in having this minor thing in a separate article; merging it back in the main article, seriously trimmed, is the best thing to do. And as for the 14 years in prison--they didn't happen, did they. Besides, as one of the sources notes, "By far the most extraordinary aspect of Jimi Hendrix's drug bust in Toronto on May 3, 1969, was how little press it generated." Drmies (talk) 20:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep reading; it generated little press because Hendrix's management bribed people to bury the story. Interesting angle, hey? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:43, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hmm, no, sorry. Bribing one AP reporter, ah well. It didn't prevent the NYT from reporting on it. But even with a bribe this is not a notable enough incident to warrant its own article. Drmies (talk) 21:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - On what basis, Drmies, do you conclude that this was "not one of the most important events in his life"? Unfortunately Mr. Hendrix has been dead for almost 44 years so he can't offer his views personally but if you were arrested and facing charges that could put you in prison for 14 years I dare say that you would not view that as an unimportant event in your life. As a high profile public figure that would only exacerbate the significance of this event to Mr. Hendrix, not diminish it. The basis for retention is not whether or not this was important to you, or any other editor or reader, but whether or not it was important to Mr. Hendrix, the subject of the article. Clearly it was. Centpacrr (talk) 21:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Virtually all sources agree that the drugs were planted on Hendrix and that the bust had been set-up. So is it really your position that the biggest star in North America was framed for drug smuggling, but that is not notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Yep. Every event of his life is pretty much significant. Being contractually obligated to produce one more record and churning out Band of Gypsys was a significant event. Setting a guitar on fire in 1967 was a significant event. Playing Woodstock the morning after was a significant event. His military service was significant. All of these can probably be much more extensively sourced than this story. And I didn't say that it wasn't notable for inclusion: you're putting words in my mouth. It should be included in his article, and not anywhere else. Do you want to argue there should be separate articles on the friendship between Hawthorne and Melville? On Faulker receiving the Nobel prize? On SRV getting clean? Drmies (talk) 00:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, thanks for the thoughtful reply; good points all. At the risk of breaking WP:OTHERSTUFF, I think its hypocritical to pounce on this article in the first 24 hours out of principle when 4 or 5 out every 10 random article I see are not any more justified, based on your logic here. E.g., there is a Wikipedia article about almost every footballer who ever lived no matter how inconsequential. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:04, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a valid split of extended detail which would otherwise be too much for the main biography. The event was covered sufficiently by the media to satisfy our WP:GNG requirement. Binksternet (talk) 21:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Enough to warrant a paragraph or two. That doesn't warrant a separate article. Drmies (talk) 21:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect with a selective merge of the most important elements. This is far beyond "ordinary" undue weight. We are supposed to be an encyclopedia, not "Police News of the Past". Encyclopedias are supposed to provide an overview of major events, not the most minute trivia as I'm seeing here. Nyttend (talk) 22:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- In what way does this article fail WP:EVENTCRIT and WP:GNG? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Let me repeat: this is massively undue weight, and this much content on the incident is not encyclopedic. I can provide tons of reliable sources for the meanings, etymological development, spelling changes, etc. of the words "rose" and "black" (check the OED on these; they get more coverage than almost any other words), and far more than is necessary for GNG. However, we wouldn't keep such an article because that's the province of a dictionary, not of an encyclopedia; in the same way, this is the province of an actual biography, not an encyclopedia article. Meanwhile, can you provide evidence of this event having any of WP:EVENTCRIT's historical significance, unrelated to Hendrix himself? I quote from WP:NOT — Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are. For example, news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lead to over-detailed articles that look like a diary. Not every match played, goal scored or hand shaken is significant enough to be included in the biography of a person. Meanwhile, consider again what I said above: real encyclopedias summarise what the sources have said, rather than giving every trivium that gets mentioned. Nyttend (talk) 23:32, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, per WP:GNG: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." It certainly meets that criteria. As far as "can you provide evidence of this event having any of WP:EVENTCRIT's historical significance", maybe not, but can that be said about Zona Industriale, Joseph Viger, Solina Chau, Lezlee Westine, Nickernut, 1999–2000 Asian Cup Winners' Cup, Dorset Street, Dublin, Randolph Central School Corporation, Percy Commey, Balchladich, Thirukkattupalli, 2011–12 Bath City F.C. season, Salz, Western Flycatcher, Denisse van Lamoen? How many albums or songs can be said to have "historical significance", maybe 10%? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think this source is very "groovy" and should be used in the article. Doc talk 06:16, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. It's a pretty substantial article on a pretty substantial event. Hotcop2 (talk) 22:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Delete - Although I share GabeMc's concern that this is a significant event and deserves mention, in my honest opinion, it's not significant enough to warrant its own page. Mlpearc (open channel) 00:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Delete per above. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If one reads the coverage of the arrest and trial in respected biographies such as those written by Shapiro and Glebbeek, and by Charles Cross, and in Noel Redding's autobiography, all written decades after Hendrix's death, it becomes clear that this was a traumatic event that greatly affected him for seven months. It was vastly more than a "match played, goal scored or hand shaken". And his career as a big star only lasted four years. Since GabeMc strongly supported deletion of the mugshot image, I fail to see how this is somehow his ploy to keep the image. The article should be evaluated on its own merits and its potential for improvement rather than being tied to the image debate. When Jimi Hendrix became a featured article, there were only three poorly-referenced sentences about this arrest and trial. Pretty much all of what Tarc calles the "pre-meddled-with version" was added later, mostly by GabeMc and I, who were disagreeing strongly about the image at the time while collaborating on improving the text. I believe that this article is appropriate under these specific circumstances, and do not see its creation as "pointy". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - JH is a music icon, a virtual Messiah, across the world. Ordinarily this might be trival but not in his case. S.O. went to a lot of trouble, including apparently to carefully cite sources, in creating this. My main reason to keep is it gets cumbersome to read the JH article if this is all stuffed there. It's much more manageable and the conventional way to do it on WP, to have a little "See main article" link and only a dab about this at JH. Paavo273 (talk) 21:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Who will save us from this terrible peril of editors expanding articles?Andy Dingley (talk) 09:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not an issue with expansion - it's expansion written to far too much detail for an encyclopedia, with most of the text there trying to justify the use of the mugshot non-free image (the whole reason the article was created to prevent its deletion off the Hendrix page). That is both abusing the purpose of non-free, as well failing to be an encyclopedia. This event was well covered in the original Hendrix article (and reviewed at FAC) by 2 paragraphs + change prior to issues with the mugshot. --MASEM (t) 15:26, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - With respect, Masem, this continued line of argument of yours has already been fully debunked by multiple other editors in this thread and has thus gained no traction. For one thing the creator of this article had opposed keeping the mugshot. His creation of this entry was instead done for a very different reason, to-wit, with further reading and consultation of reliable published sources (including eight books he cited in the 25 footnotes) the creating editor found that the arrest and subsequent seven month criminal legal issues were far more significant in Mr. Hendrix's life than were then reflected in the main article's original material.
  - As has happened many many thousands of times on WP in the past, this led the editor to take the initiative to create a "daughter" article on this complex seven month episode and link it to the main article. Far from being an "abuse" of process, this is one of the main ways in which the project is built. If you are not personally interested in the subject of this particular article you are, of course, free to ignore and not read it. That does not mean, however, that your personal disinterest in it is a valid reason to deny access to this information to those who are. Wikipedia is not designed to only appeal to only the lowest common denominator of interest, but instead to the broadest. So let us just close this ill conceived and pointless AfD now, stop additional forum shopping to delete the original image, and move on to more productive activities like growing the project instead of trying to diminish it. Centpacrr (talk) 16:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, this article was specifically created so that the mugshot image would no longer be an issue on the Hendrix page, effectively off-loading the problem to here; there it was considered a compromise but without input of NFCC consideration. Prior to that, the editors on that page created an incredibly detailed account of the trial and arrest (beyond what would be called for in an encyclopedia) to try to justify the image under NFCC, beyond the original tight version. If the FFD had closed delete, this article would have never likely been created and the extra text added removed for the condensed version. We do not write articles to justify NFCC, it is supposed to be the other way around. And this "this complex seven month episode" is hyperbole. He was called out at the airport, they found drugs, he was booked, bail was posted, a trial date was set, and the trial took all of a day 7 months later, with him acquitted of the charges. Four total days out of his life. And given everything else that has been said and the full extent of what's there on Hendrix, yes, the weight of the charge was an impact on his performance art, but that easily can be (and has been) described in a few short paragraphs prior to this expansion. We are not a newspaper, which the bulk of this article is, and more importantly, is better covered in context of the overall life of Hendrix. --MASEM (t) 16:19, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Do you really think that is the way that Mr. Hendrix, the subject of the main article, viewed this seven months? Really? I hope you are never put in the same situation Mr. Hendrix was. If you were I think you would have a whole different perspective on this! With respect, Masem, you are just plain wrong here and your argument is thus not gaining any support or consensus. So please just drop it. With respect, sir, you are now just making yourself look foolish. Centpacrr (talk) 16:29, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm sure it weighed heavily on him. But to say it has that much significance given how little the sources cover this period is OR and undue weight. We do have choice quotes that can be used, but they worked just fine in context of the overall biography of him before this article was created. That part should be kept. But a full detailed documentation of the short arrest and trial which is the bulk of this article is improper. --MASEM (t) 16:36, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Masem, once again you have your facts about Hendrix wrong. The sources cover this period in just as much detail as any other in his life, so I'm not sure where you got that idea or why you keep repeating it, but its not at all accurate. The sources absolutely cover this period. Centpacrr is correct about the enormity of this event in Hendrix's life. For one, all he ever wanted to do was make a living as a professional musician. Had he been convicted, his music career would have been ended. Also, he toured incessantly from 1967, but after completing the scheduled engagements after the bust, he didn't perform for more than 6 months, the longest such hiatus of his entire 6-years career. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:41, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        You were the one in the discussions before complaining that suddenly the content dedicated to the trial in the article (before this was split) in word %ages far exceeded what the sources had about it. That tells me right there this is undue weight. If he was convicted, yes, it would have affected his life, obviously. So are people who are arrested for anything with potential jail sentences - but we don't create articles on every one of those trials even if the people are notable. And all these details you give should be in his biographical context, as they are important and show the importance of the trial on that, but you had that fine in the FAC version with 2 paragraphs and change. --MASEM (t) 16:51, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        You are confused; I said that the actual image wasn't discussed, not that the incident wasn't. Re: Masem's repeated assertions that reliable secondary sources do not cover this incident in any detail. In 2003, author and Hendrix biographer Keith Shadwick wrote: "His arrest, bail and the subsequent hearing[s] ... have all been related at length in previous Hendrix biographies, and a book about the music is not the place to pour over the fine detail of the entire incident." (Shadwick, Keith (2003). Jimi Hendrix: Musician. Backbeat Books. ISBN 978-0-87930-764-6. Page 186) My sentiments exactly, which is precisely why I created the sub-article. His bio should be primarily about his music. Not his drug use as Masem has insisted. For Masem pushing for more material devoted to drugs, look here and here. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:54, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        
        So, why complain about WP:UNDUE here, while pushing for a build-up of material relating to Hendrix's drug use in an effort to justify the picture? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:58, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        (ec) That's not what I said (about the image and the incident). You were saying things like "Either way, we currently devote 3–6 times as much space to the incident as these two bios do..." in trying to show why the mugshot and expansion wasn't necessary, and shows why this is undue weight on a small incident on his life that easily was summarized in a few paragraphs before. And his bio should be about his biography, since we have separate articles for all his studio albums and other music works (though a broad overview of his musical talents and influence of course should be in the main article). Whatever aspect about Hendrix and his purported drug use should be part of that article, not separate. To off-load anything about his drug use to a separate article seems extremely POV-ish (to make Hendrix appear more "saintly" (for lack of a better word) than what sources give). Yes, we have to cover the bad about a person as well as the good as long as its reliably documents, that's what NPOV requires. --MASEM (t) 17:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        See, that's the point that you aren't getting. The coverage of his drug use in the dedicated article is already ample, but you suggested that if we "build-it up more" the image would be justified, which isn't at all how you write a good article. You keep repeating that I made Hendrix out to look good regarding drugs, but I still think that you haven't even bothered to actually read the article, or at least that section devoted to drugs and alcohol. In the article, I detail at least three bad acid trips, his marijuana and hashish use, his use of speed, cocaine, and LSD, and his propensity for violence when he drank too much. Oh yeah, and also his overdose on sleepers. Still, you push for more detail regarding drug use so that his article is more about his substance abuse then it is his life and music. No, I am not trying to make him look "saintly", and anyone who reads the article will see that. IMO, it is you how wants him to look like a junkie that he never was. That's the NPOV issue here, not the opposite. Really though, you think that "build-up the story of his drug use to justify a non-free image" is good advice? Really? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:14, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Per BDD's explanation in closing the FFD: "Does the presence of other images in the Jimi Hendrix make this image superfluous? Perhaps. I note that there aren't other images related to his "drug use and violence." It may be fruitful instead to treat this as a content dispute, discussing on the article talk page what this image contributes to the overall article rather than focusing on its copyright status". That suggested looking at expanding out the article to talk about drug use and violence even if this shines a negative light on Hendrix (as long as that's sourced). Not the trial. If you trim out the details of the arrest and trial, you have something that slots right back into the bio in the right place. And I was also trying to say "expand to debunk the urban legends that he was a junkie, such as the oft-cited claim that Purple Haze was about drugs", all which should be part of this article. --MASEM (t) 17:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        That's also bad advice, Masem. Details regarding the meaning of the lyrics to "Purple Haze" absolutely do not belong in the dedicated bio as an effort to discuss his drug use. That's a detail for the song article, and that's good article 101. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        No it's not. It is a clear urban legend that Hendrix was a junkie, with one common example being that Purple Haze lyrics were about drugs. This should be addressed and debunked as best as the sources allow for on his bio article (citing some examples which may include some of his musical works) to make it clear how false the urban legend is. This seems completely appropriate to address in a biographical article as it would be the first place I'd look for checking the validity of that legend. Importantly, though, this urban legend is documented (and some cases, perpetuated) in reliable sources; if it wasn't, FRINGE is over that way and I would agree to completely ignore it. But that's not the case here. --MASEM (t) 18:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Masem, the article currently has 900 words devoted to Hendrix's drug use and problems occurring thereof. The article is 11,595 words long; therefore: 7.8% of the article is devoted to his drug use and less than 10% to his three studio albums! Why won't you acknowledge this point? How much coverage of drugs is enough, because you keep saying that there isn't enough, but its one of the main focuses of the article that you apparently have never even read. Will you please acknowledge that you understand that almost 8% of the article's prose deals with Hendrix's drug use? Why, IYO, is this not enough? Have you even read a book on Hendrix? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Just because only 10% of the biographical article is dedicated to his music, there's several sub-articles that goes into his music in more depth via his studio albums, so the net volume of information on his music is much larger. And the text that is in there about his history with drugs is too detailed at some points, and not broad enough. The fact you have it separated out from his personal history (falling after the section of his death), it should be approached as a broad picture of whatever troubles and ways to rid himself of such troubles with drugs and alcohol use. It focus much much less on the details and more on the larger picture. That's what the issue was when people started filling in all the possible details they could about the trial to justify the mugshot - it lost sight of the larger picture of how this section should have been structures as to force NFCC. If I go back to the version promoted at FA, I don't understand why any more is needed as long as it is understood that the present text there would not support the mugshot. If you start to go into any more detail, then you need to cover all the basis and that's where the problem lies with the current version and this article. --MASEM (t) 19:32, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        You seem to operate under the notion that whatever was there when it passed FAC is set-in-stone. I don't share this view; I continue to improve my FAs long after they pass. At any rate, I have no respect for your opinions on content; sorry, but I seriously don't think that you know what you are talking about in that regard. I think the article is absolutely the best on Hendrix currently available online. Find a better one, or find a better Wikipedia article about any rock star from the 1960s. I'd love to see what you think is better. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep valid sub-article of jimi hendrix, which by itself easily meets the GNG, also decently written. Nomination seems to be little more than a disagreement on the organization of the main article. The Steve 09:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete Okay, I'm trying not to get too distracted by the apparent suggestion that somehow this non-conviction on a drug charge is more notable than the Kennedy assassination, for heaven's sake. But after following all the back and forth, I do agree with the position that this could be summarized quite adequately within the main article, and does not merit a content fork. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:48, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I was in no way comparing this incident to the Kennedy assassination; I was merely debunking Masem's assertion that the Hendrix sources don't cover the arrest and trial, because every single one of them does. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:51, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - After a lot of thought and careful reading of this page as well as the new article, I agree with the reasoning that this material stands on its own as a separate article. It is well-sourced, written and presented. The arguments to delete are highly unconvincing, and the arguments that deletion is justified because the article was created to prove a point, while superficially plausible, can just as easily be "boomeranged" around. The article improves the 'pedia. Let's move on. Jus da fax 23:25, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now there's the Tarc I remember. Regardless of any speculations about motives, the bottom line is that the article passes WP:GNG and does so with flying colors. The comments of Andy Dingley and Centpacrr ring very true. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- No one is saying it doesn't pass the GNG. But meeting the GNG does not assure a stand-alone article is appropriate, particularly in this case where the coverage of this detail fails WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:UNDUE. --MASEM (t) 04:36, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well-written article about a little-known but scarring incident. Rothorpe (talk) 17:42, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The arguments for deletion are not baseless, but I actually think there is plenty here to live in its own article. Calling content creation pointy should be done with extreme care and with irrefutable proof, neither of which I see here. The encyclopedia benefits from this coverage, and there is no reason to dilute and merge it other than possibly arguments for undue weight, which I don't find compelling. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 13:37, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Gabe contributes a great deal to Wikipedia's music pages and I find all of his articles to be well balanced and meaningful. --Kingslove2013 —Preceding undated comment added 17:05, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well-written and well-sourced article on a notable event in one of the most important musical figures of the 20th century. Although I think it will need to be renamed to meet naming conventions. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 05:06, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Tarc, I have to wonder about your reasoning here. What if the image suddenly disappeared? Would you still think that this article should be deleted? What if I removed the image from this article and put it back at Jimi Hendrix? Would you still argue for deletion here? If so, why? Also, if you are trying to delete this article for the sole reason that you find its creation pointy, then isn't that just as WP:POINTY? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:39, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tarc, are you sure it was a "minor incident", if so, where did you get this information? Hendrix faced 14 years in prison; is that really minor, IYO? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My reasoning is that I witnessed what is IMO a bad-faith end-around done because an NFCC-related discussion wasn't going your way. The claim that this is "one of the most notable events in the life of Jimi Hendrix" is just...I don't know what to call it, either it's severely uninformed regarding Hendrix and rock history in general, or it is intentional (and very transparent) hyperbole. It doesn't matter how long the potential sentence was, it doesn't justify the word bloat that you're giving it. And please stop pinging me, I have the AFD on watchlist. Tarc (talk) 19:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't bad-faith, Tarc. The major concern was that the image didn't belong at Jimi Hendrix, that's been alleviated. Now, we have a separate concern regarding this article, but even if the image is inappropriate here this article is not going to be deleted because it meets all the critera with flying colors. Shouldn't your rationale be based on a lack of notability, versus revenge for not following the ridiculously tedious and endless Wiki-red tape? Do you offer any policy based-reason for deletion, because I seriously doubt if WP:POINTY applies to content deletion. FWIW, I view this AfD as WP:POINTY, since you are not really debating its notability, are you? There was no consensus for deletion at Hendrix, so why would there be consensus against inclusion at a dedicated topical article? All the RSs go into great detail about the incident, and I'm not sure how you can categorize facing 14 years in prison for drug smuggling as minor. We have an article dedicated to Michael Jackson's molestation charges, but I doubt he was ever facing 14 years in prison. At any rate, it need not be the most notable thing of all time to justify an article, all it needs to meet are WP:EVENTCRIT and WP:GNG. Can you make any cogent argument that it does not meet these guidelines? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Saying "The major concern was that the image didn't belong at Jimi Hendrix..." is an admission of guilt as far as I am concerned, and the meandering into other topics only reinforces that. My nomination rationale was two-fold; your bad-faith end-around of a non-free content discussion, and the fact that there isn't enough to say about the event itself to justify forking off of the main article. The prose at present reminds me of a junior high-schooler fluffing up an essay to make it reach the required number of pages the teacher asked for; a lot of words to say very little, a lot of excessive detail beyond what is warranted for an encyclopedia topic. Tarc (talk) 21:13, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"an admission of guilt"? Am I really on trial here? Why are my intentions a factor regarding the notability guidelines? As far as the current condition of the article, its less than 24 hours old. Tell me it sucks after I get it through FAC! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a note, Jackson was charged with *14* counts involving minors; I can't find an exact number of what the maximum sentence would have been but were he found guilty he would have been spending several decades in prison from some of these charges alone. --MASEM (t) 21:19, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Werieth, what part of our notability guidelines does this article fail? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:51, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I never stated that this issue shouldnt be covered, however I think that creating a separate article for what in the big picture is a minor event, places undue importance on the event. That undue importance violates WP:NPOV. Werieth (talk) 18:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree. There is all kinds of stuff to go into. Like speculation that Hendrix's manager Mike Jeffery had him set-up to control him (Redding's book). Or that Hendrix purgured himself under oath, or how about the possibility that he was set-up by the authorities. He faced 14 years in prison, so to say this is a minor event in his life is ridiculous. What about 1993 child sexual abuse accusations against Michael Jackson? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One of the most fascinating things about the nuances of this project for me is that there really is no room for die-hard "wikibuddies" if you approach it honestly. Things can turn on a dime, and editors can literally co-exist as "frienimies' without breaking any rules. I've never once met an editor that I agree with 100% across the board on every single edit and/or opinion. AGF is a big thing, and I extend it to everyone except blatant trolls and vandals. I don't give a rat's ass what someone says to me in frustration, and I don't dwell on it. Compromise is important in life, and on WP. People disagree about stuff vehemently, and that doesn't make anyone bad. But I digress! I don't see the creation of the article as "pointy", as it is not "disruptive" to the project. Doc talk 05:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FTR, I think its a misrepresentation to say that I wrote the article for no other reason than to "justify the use of a non-free image". 1) I'm not a big fan of the image in the first place; I !voted for deletion at the last FFD, 2) There was a building consensus that more needed to be said about this notable incident, but too much detail at Jimi Hendrix was creating a WP:UNDUE situation. 3) If the image was not removed or deleted when it was in Jimi Hendrix, how can its status be less now at a dedicated topical article? 4) I was only trying to rectify the situation at Hendrix, which required a) that the image be removed, and b) that more detail be written to address this notable incident. Even if the image is inappropriate, the article isn't, so inclusion of a non-free file is absolutely not a valid reason to delete an 1,800 word (and growing) article. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 20:13, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 20:13, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ivanvector (talk) 20:19, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question. - Is it common to have these discussions about an article that was created less than 24 hours ago? Isn't there anything in the guidelines that affords article creators some time to develop new articles, because it seems wrong to criticize the quality of such a newly started article (as Tarc did above). Also, am I really on trial here, because Tarc keeps using words like guilty? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a "new" article since the content was pulled out of another. --MASEM (t) 22:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Its really difficult for me to AGF with you. You seem to like arguing about meaningless distinctions. You know what I mean, but FTR, I pulled 700 words out of Hendrix and the new article is now 2,100 words. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If kept I would suggest per WP:TITLEFORMAT that we adopt a more conventional X of Y naming structure, such as Canadian drug charges and trial of Jimi Hendrix. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:23, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds good to me. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed. Ivanvector (talk) 20:33, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Again we have now wasted over 7,000 words (more than four times the length of the article) in just two days in the pointless, omphaloskeptic AfD that does not have a chance in hell of being successful. The article is relevant, accurate, not specious, well written, and heavily footnoted with citations to eight reliable sources. Let's end this foolishness now and get on to doing something constructive on WP. Please. Centpacrr (talk) 17:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - It is much better to have 7000 words on talk/discussion pages than edit warring battles so there's no reason to belittle discussion. Plus, the fact this is unresolved from an NFCC standpoint still. --MASEM (t) 17:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        I think this is going to be closed 'keep'. Best to have that happen asap, and the article renamed, to allow more specific content discussion to proceed without the distractions of the AfD etc.—Aquegg (talk) 17:48, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Masem's assertion: "how little the sources cover this period"; a Google search of jimi hendrix drug trial turns up almost 47,000,000 hits. On the other hand, a Google search of kennedy assassination yields just 23,000,000 hits. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's four words. Do the same search for just jimi + hendrix and you'll get less, only 19 mil hits. Searching for "jimi hendrix drug trial" in quotes nets just 4 hits, none of which are relevant. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:35, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, but president john kennedy assassination yields less than 15 million hits. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:39, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you adding "president"? "john kennedy assassination" nets 15 millions of hits. This is getting silly. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:41, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this has been silly for 6 weeks! At any rate, in 2003, author and Hendrix biographer Keith Shadwick wrote: "His arrest, bail and the subsequent hearing[s] ... have all been related at length in previous Hendrix biographies, and a book about the music is not the place to pour over the fine detail of the entire incident." (Shadwick, Keith (2003). Jimi Hendrix: Musician. Backbeat Books. ISBN 978-0-87930-764-6. Page 186) So that really should be enough to de-bumk the "no sources cover this" theory, right? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Google search for the combined terms "jimi hendrix", arrest, Toronto and "may 1969" returns plenty of relevant hits. Centpacrr (talk) 17:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At any rate, Google hits are irrelevant. The sources section of the article has 12 reliable secondary sources, which is more than enough to justify the article in terms of sources. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:07, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. Centpacrr (talk) 18:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We don't look at ghits for AFDs. We look at the coverage actual reliable sources give, and GabeMc even said that its very little in the actual biographical books about Hendrix, making this undue weight. --MASEM (t) 18:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop misrepresenting what I've said. You keep twisting the fact that I said to go into this much detail in the bio was WP:UNDUE, because it was overshadowing other important aspects of his life. I never said that the sources don't discuss the incident; ALL OF THEM DO. There isn't one Hendrix bio that does not discuss the incident. You are having trouble keeping your facts straight, but how can there be 15 reliable sources in the Toronto article if the sources do not discuss the incident? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those are primary sources. This article is redocumenting a news story and while you can find a lot of sources to document the events, that's not what an encyclopedia should be doing. There's major events that happen in the world each day reported by hundreds of sources, but we don't document them to any degree unless they have a larger impact. This is why source counting, outright, is bad, because it's not considering what is covered by the sources. --MASEM (t) 19:20, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, you are wrong. Only two of the sources used in the article are primary (Mitchell and Redding), all the others are secondary. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was pointing to the 15 sources you mentioned in the Torontoist, which are all pretty much newspaper articles at the time of the trial. --MASEM (t) 19:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are 12 reliable secondary sources in addition to the Torontoist, Mitchell, and Redding. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:41, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Masem I am constrained to observe that your posts here are fast reaching the level of those at the Argument Clinic which you can find here. Centpacrr (talk) 20:08, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arguably, the arguments before by those fighting to keep the mugshot image were worse. I am pretty confident we wouldn't be in this position if the mugshot was removed as it was back at the FAC (or any point thereafter). The image is still a problem, and has now created an article that is far too undue on a small detail in Hendrix' larger career. --MASEM (t) 20:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Its interesting to note that there are reliable sources that suggest that Hendrix was framed, and possibly as part of a larger government crackdown on subversive rock stars. The FBI opened a file on him after the bust. That's pretty notable, IMO. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:15, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are entitled to keep parroting that position, Masem, however the consensus of the community appears to be strongly on the other side. The majority of respondents have found your argument that this article is "undue", and that Mr. Herdrix's seven month ordeal during which he was under legal threat of being incarcerated for decades if convicted which left him virtually unable to perform for half a year was a "small detail in his larger career" to be abjectly unconvincing. Why not just be grateful that GabeMc took the time and effort to flesh out this significant extended episode in Mr. Hendrix's life? His having done so informs readers not only of the circumstances of his arrest, booking, and being charged, but also why he had this long otherwise unexplained hiatus late in his relatively short career that was subsequently prematurely ended at age 27 by a drug overdose less than a year after his trial. That seems like a pretty legitimate encyclopedic function to me. Centpacrr (talk) 20:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is Masem really an authority that we can trust regarding the relative importance of these types of events? He is on record stating that, in his opinion, Justin Bieber's recent clash with the law for DUI is more consequential and serious than was Hendrix's for heroin smuggling. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You are twisting my words. I never said Beiber's arrest was more consequential. I said it had more coverage. Huge difference. --MASEM (t) 23:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - And if you continue this, that will be considered a personal attack. You're avoiding the content issue - that this is undue coverage of something that easily (and already was) summarized in the main Hendrix article. --MASEM (t) 23:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think its relevant to the conversation. Your primary position is that the incident is not notable, yet you seem to think that Bieber's arrest is notable. Why do you think that 20 years in prison is a minor consequence? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:26, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Here you seem to argue that Bieber's incident is more consequential, as if I'm playing-up the Hendrix heroin bust while down-playing the Bieber ordeal. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My point there was to consider the type of coverage that Beiber was getting, compared to the limited amount of coverage that Hendrix's arrest had, for a similar type of crime in terms of how it is seen by the world at large. I never trivialized Hendrix' arrest, only that you can't trivialize Bieber's at the same time. They have, for all purposes, the same weight of how we should cover them in an encyclopedia. --MASEM (t) 23:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Masem you are completely ignoring the fact that in 1969 there was no internet, social media, cable and satellite TV and radio, wifi, iPhones, Androids, Blackberrys, iPads and other "mobile" devices, Twitter, Google, Facebook, syndicated entertainment TV shows, etc. Instead there were just three national over-the-air TV networks (ABC, NBC & CBS), and local radio, TV and newspapers. The difference between news and media coverage in 1969 and 2014 is just night and day so your argument here conflating the two is just another red herring. Really. Centpacrr (talk) 00:08, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- FTR, the New York Times published a story about the incident two days after the arrest, which was a big deal back then. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:25, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - And Rolling Stone, publication of record for hard rock music in 1969, published three detailed articles about the arrest and trial back then. The first was a joint effort by eminent rock journalists Ben Fong-Torres based in San Francisco, and Ritchie Yorke, based in Toronto. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:43, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - There were wire services, there were telephones; there was ways for news to be transmitted across the world within a day of events at that time. No, I realistically cannot expect the same full coverage that Beiber got but I would expect more than the handful of stories reported at that time if the arrest and trial was really that significant. As has been pointed out, the details of trial are barely covered by the biographies of Hendrix. All this together tells us that the details of the trial are verifiable but overly detailed and trivial and out of scope for an encyclopedia per NOT and UNDUE - note that I would say the same if someone were to try to create an article on Beiber's court date despite the many more sources available. This is what I was trying to get at during the RFC on the Hendrix page - the aggressive effort to force the use of the mugshot created too much detail on one tiny aspect and lost the larger picture - that, as some of those sources that talk about the trial say - Hendrix was aware of the issue with using drugs, and yes the arrest affected his musical career for seven months, and that he felt vindicated after his acquitted. The whos and whats of the trial do not matter to tell this story for an encyclopedia. --MASEM (t) 05:08, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - The New York Times covered it briefly right after the arrest, the Rolling Stone covered it three times at length over those months, the Toronto dailies covered it many times, perhaps as many as 15 times according to citations in the Torontoist, which ran a major story 42 years later, his best biographies offer many pages of coverage, his bandmates' autobiographies cover it, and we have evidence that a wire services was bribed not to cover it. Does that amount to "barely covered"? I don't think so. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:17, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        One really has to wonder, Masem, why you are so bound and determined to delete this article. Its creator, GabeMc, has done an excellent job in researching and writing it, it is extremely well sourced with 39 footnotes from eight books and other publications, and directly relates to an important series of events affecting the life and career of Mr. Hendrix, the subject of the main article. Now you may personally think this is "undue" and was a "small detail in his larger career", but the evidence of how it negatively affected his life and career over a period of seven months from May to December, 1969, demonstrates that is not the case. If the information it contains does not personally interest you, that's fine. You are certainly not required to read it. But again your personal lack of interest in what it contains is not grounds to deny access to others who may be very interested in this material. As I pointed out above, the Wikipedia project is not designed to serve and appeal to just the lowest common denominator among its readers, but to the broadest one.

So please, therefore, instead of constantly ignoring its substance in favor of arguing your interpretation of fine points of "policy and guidelines" as grounds for deletion, honestly answer these two questions about this article: What specific substantive harm do you claim that the existence and availability of this article to those who may wish to read it do to the Wikipedia Project, and how and on what basis do you claim that it's deletion would benefit and/or improve the quality and value of the project? If you can't come up with clear and convincing answers to those two questions supporting your position with which you are able to persuade the community that Wikipedia would be better off without this article (and you certainly have not been able to do that so far), then I think it is time for you to accept that this article is an appropriate and valuable addition to the project on its substance, and that there is therefore no valid basis for its deletion. None at all. Centpacrr (talk) 07:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely, Centpacrr. Well said. Jus da fax 07:35, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...And we are now up to 11,200 words on this pointless AfD exercise.

Just guessing, cumulative copyright infringement? I.e. the more details we take from books and put in WP, the less incentive there is for folk to buy the books.—Aquegg (talk) 08:20, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Historical and other facts in and of themselves are not copyrightable. Footnoted sources that are quoted (either verbatim or otherwise) are what most of Wikipedia depends and is based on for its reliability and are either in the Public Domain or if copyrighted fall under the fair use provisions of the US Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. § 107). From both personal experience and empirical evidence, I also find that the contention "the more details we take from books and put in WP, the less incentive there is for folks to buy the books" is not only false but the exact opposite result is more often true. Centpacrr (talk) 18:56, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Aquegg was speculating about Masem's possible response to your questions, not arguing the point per se; of course I could be wrong. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:00, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) IMAGINE A WORLD where the first person to record information gained private ownership & control of that information forever .... Ivanvector (talk) 19:01, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I expect you are right, GabeMc, but just in case these were to be his answers I am just providing a preemptive strike reply. I suspect that it is far more likely, however, that he will not attempt to answer these questions at all. Centpacrr (talk) 19:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:21, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. The article gives undue weight to this non-notable event that shouldn't have a stand-alone page. Yes, it can be argued this was an important event Hendrix's life but many notable people have important events happen in their life (marriages for example). That fact that it was "important for them" doesn't merit it as being notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Hendrix, while he was a use of drugs, is not notable for his involvement with drugs- he is notable for his music. The article can be paraphrased as: "Hendrix had drugs on him, was charged with possession, he could have faced 20 years but didn't." I can't see why anyone looking up Hendrix be looking for more than that. Kudos to the pointiness and redundant fork. The lack of press coverage at the time (circumstances aside) concerns me too. Many sources are from significantly after the event - they're neutrality is questionable. Given the creator's super-aggressive and often straw man arguments, I think the creator is unquestionably not being neutral, I interpret the notability of the event as being largely exaggerated by GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} and think that should be noted. N4 (talk) 03:03, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

N4 see my last two paragraph comment (begining "One really has to wonder...") immediately above. In that context how then would you answer the two questions I posed there? Centpacrr (talk) 05:05, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have misinterpreted the deletion policy. Very few articles of any sort (with the exceptions of say vandalism and hoaxes) cause harm to the Wikipedia project but we don't keep articles because they don't harm the project, we keep articles for the benefit they provide. You need to explain why the article provides benefit, your two questions are irrelevant to the argument I made. The bottom line is Hendrix is NOT notable for his drugs trial in the same way, for example, that Phil Spector is notable as a murderer. And before someone points to WP:OTHERSTUFF, I'm not using this as an argument but as an illustration to demonstrate that notability does not exist in this case. The bottom line as far as I'm concerned is that Hendrix was not notable for this trial then, neither is he notable for it now. While you can argue it was "important for him personally" (again, not relevant to Wikipedia notability as per above) I interpret the lack of press coverage at the time to indicate he either viewed it as an unimportant event or as an irrelevant taint on his career. The only other sources on this issue are from years after his death that likely idealize or exaggerate the "importance" of this event to him. And as said before, the creator is clearly biased. This topic has heavily WP:UNDUE weight. Please explain why this is notable independent of "Hendrix's speculative personal feelings". Thank you. N4 (talk) 17:24, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In what way am I biased? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:50, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly there's the pointiness of the article. I don't consider this at all as a reason for deletion and so my deletion argument doesn't incorporate this fact, but the article does seem to be pointy which indicates your not being neutral. Second there are your many straw man arguments that you seem to be consciously setting up to disrupt the natural, logical flow of discussion. "Is Masem really an authority that we can trust regarding the relative importance of these types of events?" has nothing to do with the quality of his argument. Neither does your almost manipulative use of google hits as evidence of notability. Notability has nothing to do with google hits. It's almost as if you're trying to defend the article because you feel you have a point to prove. This is Wikipedia. You have nothing to prove. And then there's your super-aggressive commenting. If you were acting as a WP:neutral editor, as you are supposed to, you would post your opinion, other editors would examine your view as a respected editor and then the community would identify either the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the subject matter. The fact that this AfD is huge filled largely by your replies (some of which contribute little to the core debate) is not constructive. Your reply right now is an example of a non-constructive reply. My comment ended Please explain why this is notable independent of "Hendrix's speculative personal feelings". Thank you. Instead, you've decided to comment on my view that you are biased. Now, can you tell my why the subject is notable independent of "Hendrix's speculative personal feelings", or are you unwilling or unable to? Now, putting all that aside, I really do recommend you leave the debate alone and let other neutral parties come to their own consensus. All the best. N4 (talk) 18:18, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

N4, thanks for your response. To the first point I would say that its only pointy if you completely abandon AGF. I truly thought that it justified a stand-alone, and consensus here appears to agree with me. So, I'm not sure how that's pointy. RE: "Please explain why this is notable independent of 'Hendrix's speculative personal feelings'", 1) there is good reason to believe that this was a frame job that was part of a larger effort by right-wing interests to silence rock stars, and 2) all sources agree that he was set up, and I truly believe that the highest-paid performer in the world and the biggest star in North America getting framed for drug smuggling is pretty notable. At least as notable as Timeline of the 2005-2006 Fijian political crisis. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:37, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I can understand some of the delete arguments, and if Wikipedia wasn't so chock-full of needless articles I might agree more. We have Crab Rangoon and Crab puff, which to me are nearly identical. We have an article about almost every footballer who ever lived no matter how inconsequential, e.g. Bethel Robinson. Or how about thousands of articles about obscure non-English language movies that 50–75% of English speaking people have never, and will never hear about let alone watch. E.g., 2030 – Aufstand der Jungen. Nearly every video game has an article, but I seriously doubt that a printed encyclopedia would include them. E.g. Me & My Katamari. Is Lost in the Chamber of Love really that notable? In fact, if you do a random article search ten times, I'll bet that at least 4 or 5 of them are obscure or unnecessary based on your logic here. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:02, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopeidia so we can cover a lot of topics that would otherwise not be covered in traditional works. At the same time, we're not a collection of indiscriminate information, and we use notability and sourcing to gauge when a stand-alone article is appropriate. Is this event "notable"? It does meet the GNG, but as stated there, meeting the GNG does not require that we have a standalone page as other policy and guideline may suggest differently. In this specifically, the issue is that there's no reason why this aspect of Hendrix's life should be covered in this much detail and outside of the article of Hendrix himself. At the time it happened, it was a media blip and even future sources glossed over it, noting it happened but avoiding excessive details. It is much better suited to an article on the person it affected than a standalone. (To contrast, consider the media circuses around OJ Simpson's and Michael Jackson's trials, making the actual event of the trial well established as notable and separate from the person affected) Compare this to footballers or the like, where there's no other real context to otherwise document them, so standalones make sense. --MASEM (t) 18:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GabeMc, don't worry about it. I'm happy to provide a neutral balanced view of how I interpret things here. The prevalence of other articles of questionable notability annoys me too. In fact, given my way, Wikipedia would probably be a fifth of what it is now but (and I do hate to point out what I asked others to not point out to me) other stuff exists. I simply can't see the subject of this article as being notable enough for it's own stand alone article. That said, you do seem to be doing a good job of continuously finding new sources. As always, if the quality of sources does continue to increase, I will reconsider my interpretation. N4 (talk) 19:46, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I suspect the keepers and deleters can pretty well be segregated by those who really understand and appreciate who JH was and those who don't. There are a few people the mention of whom trivializes them. IMO JH is one of those. (I think that is true of the main JH article. No disrespect intended for the people who worked hard on THAT article.) He wasn't Phil Spector. He wasn't even Marilyn Monroe or JFK; his accomplishments in his field exceeded what they did for theirs.

Hendrix did things with his guitar and in a way (while making it look normal and natural) that most people, even accomplished guitar players, just shake their heads at. In his short career he set a bar that will probably never again be reached.

Try this sentence from the nominated article, only substituting in another man JH would be worthy to be compared to: "The incident proved quite stressful for Jesus, and it weighed heavily on his mind while he awaited trial." There are also many who see no significance in that great visionary either, or the events in his life. There are some who would say his arrest, too, was inconsequential. “Forgive them for they know not what they do.” :-) I do think the article could stand a little tightening. Paavo273 (talk) 18:43, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No one has said that we shouldn't mention this event at all - it was important as documented. But the impact on his career is easily summarized in two paragraphs (currently in this article) that can be brought into the main Hendrix article where it is more appropriate for discussion in context of his overall career, particularly at that stage in his life, and without having an affect on SIZE. The details of the arrest and trial are excess and can be summarized in a few short sentences. That's the issue here. --MASEM (t) 18:54, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I see your point here, Masem, but can't the same be said for almost any spin-out? What about First inauguration of Bill Clinton, Bill Clinton judicial appointment controversies, Bill Clinton pardon controversy, and Bill Clinton Supreme Court candidates? Or is this a bad comparison because everything "Clinton" is notable? Why can't President William Jefferson Clinton Birthplace Home National Historic Site be properly summarized in the main article? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:02, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't address the Clinton things beyond looking at the much larger media coverage of those points (in addition to the fact that a President is going to have vast volumes of information written about what they did in office); in terms of the Historic Site, consensus has determined that nearly every National Historic buidling is presumed notable; counter to this, we do not say every trial is notable. --MASEM (t) 19:11, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How about John Lennon Park, John Lennon Museum, John Lennon Educational Tour Bus, John Lennon's jukebox, or John Lennon Songwriting Contest? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:14, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of things are "media blips" (or no "blips" at all) when they happen, and their significance does not become clear until later. (The Christie/George Washington Bridge scandal, for instance, garnered very little coverage when it first happened in September, 2013.) That is exactly the case here. This arrest and its subsequent events later proved to be very significant in Mr. Hendrix's life resulting among other things in his putting his career on hold for six months and otherwise negatively affecting his life. You claim it is insignificant because he was "not known as a drug abuser" and yet he lost his life less than a year after his trail when he died in London at age 27 owing to abusing drugs (barbiturates). If this subject is so insignificant how did GabeMc manage to come up with so many published sources (including eight books) for this article?
The burden in an AfD is is on those who propose and support it to achieve consensus of the community to concur in that view. That has clearly not happened in this case as is demonstrated by 17 editors who have already spoken in here in favor of keeping it. The question I asked above was "on what basis do you claim that it's deletion would benefit and/or improve the quality and value of the project?" (i.e. addition by subtraction) which remains unaddressed. N4 claims that the article should be deleted because GabeMc posted it out of "bias". Well every contributor to WP has bias which is that they are interested enough in the subject to contribute the content. Such "bias" is not the same as a personal conflict of interest or POV, and unless you can prove that something another editor contributes is invalid for such a reason then WP requires that you "assume good faith" on the part of the other editor.
Nobody here has provided anything that challenges the good faith of GabeMc so that "charge" should be withdrawn forthwith. I make these observations as an editor who has never contributed any text or images to either this or the main article themselves, so I come to this this discussion with no conflict of interest but as as a neutral party. My only "bias" is that I strongly believe that this article is well written, well sourced, relevant to Mr. Hendrix as the subject of the main article, provides significant information about his life, was created and posted in good faith, and benefits the Wikipedia Project. Centpacrr (talk) 19:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Centpacrr, there are now 16 books used to source the article and 4 or 5 newspaper articles. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:30, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Masem, how about Trial of Michael Jackson, Trial of Conrad Murray, Detention of Maria Lourdes Afiuni, Arrest of Vladimir Putin viral video, Lady Gaga's meat dress, and Lady Gaga and the Muppets' Holiday Spectacular? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I gladly stand corrected, GabeMc, and that just bolsters my point of the value and validity of this article. Centpacrr (talk) 19:38, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Centpacrr, I don't claim the article should be deleted because GabeMc is not neutral- not at all. I said it should be deleted due to the lack of notability and that GabeMc's bias should be noted by the closing editor when he/she considers the debate. Read my comment again: Please explain why this is notable independent of "Hendrix's speculative personal feelings". N4 (talk) 19:40, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

N4 RE: "Please explain why this is notable independent of 'Hendrix's speculative personal feelings'", 1) there is good reason to believe that this was a frame job that was part of a larger effort by right-wing interests to silence rock stars, and 2) all sources agree that he was set up, and I truly believe that the highest-paid performer in the world and the biggest star in North America getting framed for drug smuggling is pretty notable. At least as notable as Timeline of the 2005-2006 Fijian political crisis.How about The Beatles in Hamburg, The Beatles at The Cavern Club, The Beatles' Decca audition, The Beatles' North American releases, The Beatles in the United States, The Beatles in 1966, The Beatles' studio years, The Beatles in India, Break-up of the Beatles, and Religious beliefs of the Beatles? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

N4, read my and the comments of the other 16 editors who favor keeping the article. The reasons are all laid out in great detail there. The burden in an AfD, however is on the proponents to convince the community that it is not notable, not the other way around. Centpacrr (talk) 19:48, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Centpacrr, I'm curious as to why you mentioned there are 16 such editors the number of editors is irrelevant. Wikipedia works on consensus- the stronger argument is what we build on. The 8 editors that are in favor of a delete/merge/redirect resolution have arguments that speak far more sense to me. N4 (talk) 20:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's clearly snowing now. I suspect the closing editor will mark this up as no consensus seeing as nobody seems particularly willing to compromise. The real trouble here is that whilst we can establish the subject meets WP:BASIC as a minimum standard for inclusion, we don't have such a clear, precise process for establishing whether a subject is suitable as a WP:CONTENTFORK or not. In that case, it seems to be any opinion goes- it's just in this case everyone seems to want to argue it to the absolute nth degree. I would suggest all parties leave the AfD alone as we aren't getting any closer to a resolution. If the subject is not notable enough for a stand-alone article, it will likely be nominated for AfD again in a month or so where less "passionate", independent editors can hopefully reach a more balanced consensus. I think we can all agree that is best for the Wikipedia project. All the best. N4 (talk) 20:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If we are talking about appropriate spin-off articles, then how about Public image of Mitt Romney, Romney family, Business career of Mitt Romney, Governorship of Mitt Romney, Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2008, Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012, Political positions of Mitt Romney, Michael Jackson's health and appearance, 1993 child sexual abuse accusations against Michael Jackson, Trial of Michael Jackson, and Michael Jackson memorial service? Why shouldn't all these sub-articles be deleted and merged into the main article? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:20, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned that there are 17 "keeps" (including myself) to indicate the strong support for that whereas there are just 5 "Merge and Deletes" and only 3 "deletes" beyond the nominator. This strikes me as pretty strong consensus to retain the article. Centpacrr (talk) 20:28, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it's not the number of "votes" but the quality of the argument that matters. Even the ratio of "non-keeps" to "keeps" as of itself makes it clear there is blatantly NO CONSENSUS reached here- a third of the editors disagree with keeping the article. Read WP:CONSENSUS for a fuller explanation. N4 (talk) 20:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson's health and appearance is a great example: and it's a GA. Romney's got a bazillion articles. Perhaps creating a Hendrix article series template to add to this article and the "Death of" article, much like {{Mitt Romney series}}, would make things more "legitimate"? Doc talk 20:51, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess Lady Gaga's meat dress, which is a 3 year-old article and also a GA, is an appropriate spin-off because its covered in so many sources? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:57, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

N4 as one of the only three editors who thinks the article should be deleted based, apparently, largely on technicalities as opposed to substance, I would certainly expect that you would think that this is the better argument. I find the arguments of the 17 who believe that the article should be kept for reasons of substance, relevance, significance of content, strong and broad sourcing, quality of writing and research, etc. to be far more persuasive and widely held. The arguments of the "merge and delete" group seem to me to be mostly compromises. Centpacrr (talk) 21:05, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

None of those 17 arguing to keep have addressed how this is not UNDUE weight given how little the actual biographies of Hendrix cover it. It is certainly possible to write this much about the case, but this is not prose appropriate for an encyclopedia that should be a summary work. --MASEM (t) 21:46, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep asserting that the Hendrix bios don't cover the incident? Have you ever read a Hendrix bio? All the bios cover the incident, and many cover it in great detail. I quote biographer Keith Shadwick: "His arrest, bail and the subsequent hearing[s] ... have all been related at length in previous Hendrix biographies, and a book about the music is not the place to pour over the fine detail of the entire incident."(emphasis added) (Shadwick, Keith (2003). Jimi Hendrix: Musician. Backbeat Books. ISBN 978-0-87930-764-6. Page 186) So, there is a reliable secondary source that directly refutes this point, which you have made at least 5 times. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:51, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From Shapiro and Glebbeek, Charles Cross, David Moskowitz, Ritchie Unterberger, and David Henderson. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:56, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A reminder that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS are not valid arguments for AFD. We're specifically focused on this article (and Jimi Hendrix as the merge target, of course). If you don't feel these other articles should exist, go ahead and nominate those for deletion but their existence has no bearing on this. --MASEM (t) 21:43, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, but that's only an essay; its not a guideline or policy. So it has little weight here, IMO, since we should be deciding this based on policies and guidelines, not essays. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:47, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This well written article is now 2,800+ words, is clearly well sourced (45 footnotes citing 18 published sources including 16 books), lists six additional books and four documentary films, and includes not only coverage of Mr. Hendrix's arrest, booking, indictment, and trial, but also sections on how these affected his career, a discussion of media suppression associated with the arrest, and a conspiracy to set Mr. Hendrix up for the arrest, all of which are highly relevant to his life and career. I find this contribution by GabeMc (whom I don;t know and have had no interactions with) to be a valuable and valid addition to the information about this high profile iconic musician and pubic figure whose work is still revered by millions 44 years after his untimely death at age 27. Removing it from the main space would only serve to diminish the Wikipedia Project, not improve it. So why not just thank GabeMc for taking the time and effort to create this article which I expect that many of those who visit the main article will visit. To be frank, it is AfDs and other similar types of processes when misapplied like this one that has driven thousands of good volunteer editors away from the project, and that diminishes it far more then an ill advised deletion of any single article. Centpacrr (talk) 22:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Centpacrr! I would add that we should consider the educational value to having a stand-alone article dedicated to this complex incident that really cannot be done justice in the main article. How many people have wondered what happened? Was he set up? Was the heroin really his? Was this part of a larger crackdown on subversive rock stars? How many readers will know that the FBI opened a file on him, or that some believe his manager set him up in an effort to control him? So many people know he was busted for drugs, but there isn't any one place online where they can read the whole story and decide for themselves if he was framed, or if he made a massive mistake. Some might assume that he was a heroin user, and they would have no place to see this refuted in extended detail. His mainstream career lasted only four years, and he released a new album in all but one of those years. I think people will wonder why he took a six month break from touring at the height of his career, and I think they will be glad to have this explained in a dedicated article. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:29, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) It doesn't matter how many words or sources are used. Here's a core question: if this incident was so important on his life (which I don't doubt), why separate it from the main Hendrix article? That's like saying "JFK died in Dallas on Nov 22, 1963." There is a lot of fluff in this article to try to justify it and the image (conspiracy theory now??) and the image but the core information is all stuff should be part of the same prose talking about Hendrix's career. --MASEM (t) 22:41, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Because it has proved, thanks to GabeMc's good work, to be a significant and complex enough seven month ordeal for Mr. Hendrix to deserve its own article. At least you now seem to be acknowledging that maybe this was not just a minor "four day" annoyance to Mr. Hendrix, so I guess that's progress. If that is not the case, however, then in the light of what the article reveals where is your human empathy for what Mr. Hendrix went through over those seven months in 1969 when he was under the threat of decades of incarceration and the end of his career? So again why not just acknowledge and thank GabeMc for his efforts and allow others who are interested in learning about this aspect and episode in Mr. Hendrix's life do so without interference. Centpacrr (talk) 23:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...And by the way we are now up to 16,500 words on this "snowball" thread too bringing the total to well over 70,000 expended in this ongoing multi-year, multi-stop forum shopping adventure. Some fun, eh? Centpacrr (talk) 23:29, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What would a world be like without deletionists who deleted just for the joy of deleting? Where people could read source-cited info they wanted to read without being told you have no right to read this 'cuz it doesn't measure up to our interpretation of the rules? This article in its short infancy has been hit 1772 times. Even if only a third or quarter of those people were just wanting to self-educate, that's A WHOLE BUNCH of people who were edified about something they thirsted for knowledge concerning. Paavo273 (talk) 23:49, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spot on, Paavo273, and for that very reason the bar for deletion of articles, unless they can be proven to be patently false or vandalism, must be extremely high and unequivocal. i.e., something akin to the legal standard for a criminal conviction: "beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty." For those deletionists out there who don't think a particular article is worth their time, that's just fine. Nobody is telling them they have to read it. That is no reason, however, to deny access to it to everybody else because, as I have pointed out before, the Wikipedia Project is not designed to serve and inform only the lowest common denominator, but the broadest. Centpacrr (talk) 00:16, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For one, this is not complex. They found drugs on him, they arrested him, there was a court date later, and he was acquited. That doesn't take an article of this complexity to describe the event. Focusing so much on the relatively trivality of the actual events is against WP policy as outlined above. And this all stems from people trying to fight to keep the NFC mugshot which, BTW, still fails policy. NFC cannot drive the creation of article text: That is a perversion of what NFC is meant to be used for. --MASEM (t) 02:46, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A consensus to delete the article is needed to delete it. There is presently nothing even close to a consensus to delete the article, and "No consensus" closes are handled using, and I quote, "the exact same procedures in keep" I really see nothing in WP:UNDUE that applies here. This is a SNOW situation, indeed. Doc talk 00:39, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, a 2 to 1 margin is consensus to keep; that's a super-majority. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I not only agree that "keep" (as opposed to "no consensus") is the appropriate outcome, but that would also be the right standard in any AfD unless the sentiment to delete were neigh on to unanimous. Centpacrr (talk) 00:53, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AFD ARE NOT VOTES. It is the strength of the policy based arguments to delete and keep. So there's zero point in bringing up the numbers. --MASEM (t) 02:42, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article and the image are "against policy" according to your opinion. There simply is no default to delete based on your interpretation of them being ultimately against policy, again, in your opinion. That's why we have these fun little deletion discussions. No closing admin is going to delete this article. The image is still up at NFCR, but the DR and RfC have been closed. Time to move on? Yep. Doc talk 02:59, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly my thoughts, Doc. If an admin super-votes and goes against 2/3rds of the participants, we will just be back here in a couple of weeks for round 5. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:06, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, this entire episode is showing the ignorance of the free content mission and the non-free policy. If people accepted the original FAC accessment the image wasn't appropriate, there wouldn't have been any issue. The article is built around supporting that image, covering details in too much UNDUE weight to try to justify it (it still isn't), and that simply is not acceptable for a work that aims to promote free content by minimizing non-free. --MASEM (t) 03:21, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have read and re-read UNDUE several times, and I really still do not see even what sentence you are referring to that applies to this article. It is time to cut your losses and move on. Rome wasn't built in a day, and this incident is not going to prevent its future glory. The people have spoken ;P Doc talk 03:30, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I fully concur with Doc and GabeMc. It seems to me that 70,000+ words of "discussion" on these matters is more than enough. Let us all thank GabeMc for his excellent work, close this AfD as "keep" on its substance irrespective of one or two deletionists personal omphaloskeptic interpretation of "policy", end this never ending exercise in forum shopping, and move on to more productive efforts like building WP instead of diminishing it. Centpacrr (talk) 03:33, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Centpacrr - please stop word counting discussions. Talk is infinitely better than edit warring, and even if this took up a million words, it is the preferred method of dispute resolution.

@Doc - it is undue because it is excessive coverage of an event that, at the time, was hardly covered and in present sources is only given passing mention in the major bios of Hendrix. Our coverage of a topic is supposed to mirror in terms of breath of coverage what reliable sources give, and going into excessive detail on a point otherwise passed over by others for more important parts of Hendrix' career, is UNDUE coverage ("..in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources"). This is not saying that the sources don't cover it, but as Gabemc has stated several times before, the amount of detail given to the arrest and trial in the primary biographical books on Hendrix is small. If you cut out the trivial details of the trial and now this conspiracy theory (which is really a tangent as it's both FRINGE-y and about all 60s rockers, not just Hendrix), you're left with the section on the effect on Hendrix' career, which is important but should be covered in his bio article. --MASEM (t) 04:04, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's simply not "undue". This AP press report from London from the day of his death[1] mentions the arrest for heroin twice in its brief coverage. Sure, they got the age wrong at 23. But it was neither non-notable nor undue. It's how millions read about the news of his death, with the arrest mention included. Doc talk 04:15, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Masem, with all due respect to the reviewers, the FAC image review was the "consensus" of exactly two people. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:48, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image reviewers at FAC are generally policy experts that can fairly judge the suitability of an image for an article. It doesn't matter there was only two, they were FAC image reviewers and both agreed the image failed policy. --MASEM (t) 03:53, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; I mean no disrespect to them, but on Wikipedia, consensus is important, and two people can't really declare consensus when 17 editors disagree. FTR, I complied and removed the image but was reverted and since I don't own the article or the image I let consensus decide. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:56, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But that's practice. FAC will say "this article cannot pass FAC with this image in place", since that's one of the criteria. --MASEM (t) 04:06, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but unless I missed the memo, FAC image reviewers are not pseudo-admins—in that they don't have "special powers" to trump everyone else's opinion; do they? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Denying FAC status for inclusion of an image does not require admin status. If, should their advice had been kept and the image removed by you or anyone else as to get the FAC passage, it would have been orphaned, and later deleted via normal process. --MASEM (t) 05:38, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that one reader in a hundred (if that) who visits Wikipedia cares one whit whether the articles they read have any self awarded "merit badges" (I know I don't), and that also has nothing whatever to do with this discussion which is about an article which was started less than a week ago. (This discussion also nothing whatever to do with any images.) The amount of coverage the arrest at Pearson did or didn't get at the time is also irrelevant for the reasons I gave before, and the article is also about far more than just the arrest but also covers what happened in the seven months after that as well the associated issues of how it negatively affected Mr. Hendrix and his career, media suppression, the arrest being a "set up", and the conspiracy involved in that.
Continually bringing up the issue of the booking photograph reinforces to me that this AfD would have never been started had it not been for the your failure to accept that you could not achieve consensus to delete that photograph elsewhere and thus is instead really just more forum shopping. So with respect, Masem, please just take Doc's sincere importunement to "cut your losses and move on. Rome wasn't built in a day, and this incident is not going to prevent its future glory. The people have spoken." Centpacrr (talk) 05:00, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*FTR - I am not suggesting in my above quoted comment that Masem, or anyone else, should in any way cease pursuing their interpretation of policy in regards to this article or image. I am merely "predicting the outcome" of this AfD. There are other avenues available to delete the article (a relisting or DR), as well as the image (a third FfD should the current NFCR close as "no consensus"). Jus' sayin'. Doc talk 05:28, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW I have in good faith closed the NFCR on the image - the discussion is moot due to the move of venue for the image. This does not prevent any further discussion in NFCR or, more appropriately, FFD (since we're talking the single use of a single image), just that this cuts down where discussion may be happening --MASEM (t) 05:38, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quite correct - the image is always fair game for future deletion nominations/discussions, as it is a non-free image. Thank you for keeping the discussion more centralized. Doc talk 05:46, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"AFD ARE NOT VOTES. It is the strength of the policy based arguments to delete and keep. So there's zero point in bringing up the numbers. --MASEM" There are two fatal flaws with this philosophy: 1) It completely ignores the essence of "consensus" (majority of opinion; general agreement or concord; harmony), and; 2) it completely ignores an article's substance (facts; content; the subject matter of thought, discourse, study). Centpacrr (talk) 12:26, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, Masem is right: if you read WP:CONCENSUS, you'll see that on WP, consensus means "as viewed through the lens of WP policy", meaning that it doesn't matter how many people !vote WP:ILIKEIT or WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, only arguments presented in terms of policy (of which it seems that WP:UNDUE and WP:BALASPS are perhaps the most significant in this case) will be considered by the closing admin.—Aquegg (talk) 17:55, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that WP:UNDUE and WP:BALASPS apply to articles that are already written. Can you point me to the parts that apply to article creation, because I'm not seeing that? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POVFORK. Particularly considering the "keep" arguments saying this was a critical point in his life counter to what the weight that sources actually give it. --MASEM (t) 19:02, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep insinuating that the sources do not cover the incident? I've debunked this assertion at least three times and I've made it quite clear that all the Hendrix bios cover the incident, some in great detail. Are you actually trying to mislead the closing admin? I quote biographer Keith Shadwick: "His arrest, bail and the subsequent hearing(s) ... have all been related at length in previous Hendrix biographies, and a book about the music is not the place to pour over the fine detail of the entire incident."(emphasis added) (Shadwick, Keith (2003). Jimi Hendrix: Musician. Backbeat Books. ISBN 978-0-87930-764-6. Page 186) So, there is a reliable secondary source that directly refutes this point, which you have made at least 6 times. From Shapiro and Glebbeek, Charles Cross, David Moskowitz, Ritchie Unterberger, and David Henderson. The sources devote considerable amount of discussion to the incident as evidenced by the above google links. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:14, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously I can't see the entire books, but what you said earlier and going by rough page counting where those hits you list, we're talking about 1-3% of those books at most dedicated to the trial. (eg about 15 pages out of a 740+ page book for the Shapiro and Glebbeck judging by what pages "Toronto" is constantly hit on and clearly about the trial). Additionally, if as it is claimed this trial had a big impact on his music, then the books about Hendrix's music should also be going into it. They appear to have noted it (from the snippets I've read), but if they didn't go into great detail, then that means this was not as significant as has been made out. I'm not saying there aren't sources or secondary sources, but in proportion to the overall coverage of what Hendrix did, they downplay the event, making this much expansion about it appear out of place for a summary work (the fact the events are written like newsline is a strong indication of non-summary form) and a POV Fork. This article is not being challenged on notability terms, but on why we need this much detail relative to the amount of detail in the bio article for a summary tertiary work. Remember, this was your complaint before when that section was being expanded to try to support the NFC by people trying to fill in these minute details of the trial. That complaint is still valid now. Again, the impact on Hendrix' life is important and we shouldn't ignore the trial but if it as important to his musical career as has been repeated claimed, it shouldn't be separate from the biography and given this much detail. --MASEM (t) 20:21, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We all know that's your personal opinion, Masem, but as the comments of the 18 editors who oppose deletion reflect, you are also very very much in the minority. WP policy indicates that we should take the good faith word of the editor who has actually seen and cited all the 16 books and other sources as opposed to someone who admits he hasn't ("Obviously I can't see the entire books") but instead just speculates as to what they may contain with no first hand knowledge. The consensus view of the vast majority of those who have commented here is that the article conforms with all the elements of WP policy and guidelines for retention. In the light of this record, if the AfD were to be closed as anything other than "keep" on the whim of a single admin that would be violation of the demonstrated consensus of the community. Centpacrr (talk) 21:18, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have cited what the editor with all those books said about the coverage of the trial before in those sources to what was written, where Gabemc clearly said there was too much detail in WP compared to what was covered in the sources. That there tells me a lot about how much UNDUE coverage this facet is getting. --MASEM (t) 18:17, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have repeatedly misrepresented my position and I have refuted you. I said it was WP:UNDUE for the bio, that's all. You've really twisted it into one of your main points, but its not at all valid, IMO, and we are talking about what I said, right? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If what was added was bad for the bio article, separating it and expanding it is worse, since we should be considering the coverage of all of Hendrix's bio articles as a whole in judging POV and weight give to a subject. Unless the actual trial itself was notable (like the one against Michael Jackson), this article "counts" towards what information WP has about Hendrix, just as the main article, and the death article does. And because this article had to be expanded to include more, it's giving way too much undue weight on the subject. --MASEM (t) 00:50, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that its undue to devote 1400 words of his bio to the drug arrest incident when there are only 1200 words devoted to his three studio albums. I'm not sure how you twisted that into proving that I put 200 edits into an article that I think is undue. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have three separate articles for each studio album, so the claim there's only 1200 words is not true (in the bio, yes, but overall, no). And given that the albums themselves are important beyond just being part of Hendrix's bio, this is completely reasonable. --MASEM (t) 01:58, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but Are You Experienced is 7,000 words long, and its summarized in the Hendrix bio in 300 words. The Toronto article is 2,800 words long and the incident is summarized in the main article in 180 words. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:07, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arb break

FWIW, the article has been hit almost 2,000 times this week. Yeah, Masem. I know that hits don't matter, but hits are what make Wikipedia; without them this is a futile effort. The first random article I saw today, R.F.C. Seraing, got less than 300 hits all month. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:14, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Process" -- especially when sought to be applied blindly and slavishly as in this case -- should NEVER be allowed to trump "substance" on Wikipedia. That only serves to defeat the goals of the Project, not benefit it. As I have said before, the Wikipedia Project was never created and designed to only appeal to only the lowest common denominator of interest, but instead to the broadest. Therefore even if only one person visited and benefited from this page in any particular week (instead of 2,000 or any other number), that is still more than enough to justify its retention. Centpacrr (talk) 18:04, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Process does override content, that's why we have WP:NOT, WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV. We're trying to write a quality tertiary source - not the end-all of human knowledge, and as such , there are processes meant to eliminate content (even content that may be of interest to some) in favor of higher quality. --MASEM (t) 18:17, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, exactly what constitutes "a quality tertiary source" is a matter of subjective opinion. After all, would "a quality tertiary source" have 10,000 articles on video games, or 100,000 articles on obscure footballers? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:23, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is subjective. The point is more towards Centpacrr's claim that process can't override content, not to this AFD directly. --MASEM (t) 18:28, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's exactly what WP:IAR is for. When process seems to trump the overall goal of writing an encyclopedia that people enjoy reading, we should ignore that process in favour of improving the encyclopedia. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:33, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Masem I didn't say "content", I said "substance". Not the same thing at all. This article is brimming with "substance" which is reliably sourced from 16 books and several other published sources and has already has been supported on the basis of its "substance" by a wide variety editors who have already commented in here. The burden in an AfD is on those who propose deletion to convince the community the the article lacks substance as if consensus to delete is not achieved the article stands. The starting presumption, therefore, is retention, not deletion. (In law this would be akin to "innocent unless and until proven guilty".) If that were not the case, the process would instead be called "Articles for Retention". Centpacrr (talk) 18:37, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Attempting to summarise all the above (omitting pointiness and image NFCC issues, as neither is grounds for article deletion).

Proposed:

The sub-article falls foul of the WP:CONTENTFORK guideline and WP:POV policy; the amount of coverage in the subarticle outweighs its relative coverage by topic sources; the article had been at FAC prior to the addition of this material, and had thus been considered well balanced.

Per the WP:NOT policy, and in particular WP:NOTEVERYTHING, its level of detail is too high to be encyclopedic.

Opposing arguments:

It's reliably sourced and well-written.

Readers want content; articles should be expanded.

The importance of both the topic (greatness of Hendrix) and the sub-topic (trauma of event) are enough to warrant a sub-article.

Other articles exist with similar levels of (im)balance.

Sources cover every aspect of the topic (Hendrix's life) in as much detail as this sub-topic.

The sub-article represents newly discovered info (since FAC).

The topic & sub-topic are WIP: balance constantly changes with article and sub-article development.

—Aquegg (talk) 22:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget WP:GNG and WP:EVENTCRIT; I couldn't help but notice that only the delete side is policy-based. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:26, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, forgot to list GNG as a deliberate omission (I don't think it's being contested). Have to read up on the other one though.--Aquegg (talk) 22:38, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With respect I find Aquegg's "summary" above seems to me to be unduly biased in favor of deletion (the minority position this editor favors) by omitting or glossing over many of the arguments made in opposing deletion. I think it is best to rely on the actual postings as opposed to this seemingly faulty summary. Centpacrr (talk) 22:46, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How about WP:DEPTH, WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, and WP:DIVERSE? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:51, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would also argue that this is not a "POV fork", but rather a WP:SPINOFF. Doc talk 23:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. What part of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not justifies deletion? Because I keep reading it, and maybe diary makes sense, but that is referring to the main bios, not spin-offs. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The specific point on NOT is WP:NOT#NEWS. In specific in how the arrest and trial is written as a newspaper would approach it and not in a level of summary that would be appropriate for an encyclopedia. The reactions are different, but everything up to the point of being acquitted of the charges can be summarized to at most a paragraph (both arrest and trial). When you do that, what's left is small and easily put back to the Hendrix article since its affect on his life is the core matter as all the keep votes have explained but not reflected in the main article. --MASEM (t) 23:47, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are four parts to WP:NOT#NEWS. Which one applies here? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:50, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Masem the pettiness of your "argument" is really becoming tiresome as you are conflating differences over editorial judgement with your unduly pinched view of misapplied "policy". You have already admitted that this article causes the WP no "harm" as would be the case with an article based on fabrication or vandalism, and you have utterly failed to provide any reason or evidence as to how or why deleting the article would in any way benefit or improve the project. This is simply a difference in editorial judgement and/or approach, and not in any way a violation of WP policy, guidelines or the Project's encyclopedic character or structure. You are making it little more than a Pythonesque argument for argument's sake. (21,135) Centpacrr (talk) 00:28, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gabemc - #2 , not being a newspaper.

We delete material that "does not harm" to WP all the time, so that's a null argument. Just because we can go into detail doesn't mean it is always the best thing. Again, if this event was so important to Hendrix' life, we would be covering it on his bio page, not here, and to do that you simply trim out the cruft of the details of the arrest and trial to a level that's more appropriate for an encyclopedia. It improves how we are considered a quality work by readers. Particularly consideration the conditions this article was created under, this is certainly a POVFORK to try to make this an "important" that has not been shown to be that significant an event considering everything else that happened in Hendrix' live. It was a problem when this content was being added willy-nilly in the Hendrix article, it remains a problem when it is broken out. That's UNDUE, and that's a policy. Yes, whether this is subjectively UNDUE is a matter of what this AFD is about for discussion, but that's a policy-based argument for its deletion which hasn't yet been rebutted. Yes, it has been shown that this was covered but UNDUE is not about whether something is covered or not, but the weight we're giving it. As Gabemc has pointed to before, the amount that the main bios give to this trial is trivial; discussed but not at length, and that's an issue if we're giving it that much more weight. --MASEM (t) 00:47, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop misrepresenting me or provide actual diffs. I said it was undue to go into too much detail at Jimi Hendrix. That's it, and you've repeated it 12-15 times. Its not true. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment above - in evaluating UNDUE and POVFORK, we're considering all the content on all related topics, so the idea that forking off a part that was UNDUE in the bio article into a separate to allow it to expand makes the UNDUE problem worse. --MASEM (t) 01:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is sourced with 16 books and 5 newspaper articles. #2 does not apply; that's about "breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information". GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:50, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. This incident has been written about since two days after it happened until 43 years later. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is why policy is not prescriptive and going to explicitly cover every sitation, but descriptive; the intent is that we should not be writing articles like a newspaper article; this is a point explained in the essay WP:PROSELINE. The arrest and trial section are inappropriately over detailed and written for an encyclopedic summary of the events. --MASEM (t) 00:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that per an essay, any article that has a couple of overly detailed sections should be deleted? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:01, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm pointing out what proseline is via the essay, and that by policy NOT:NEWS, we shouldn't be writing articles that look like newspaper articles (which proseline resembles). --MASEM (t) 01:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When I read #2 I don't see anything about deleting an article based on how it reads. I think its about over reliance on breaking news stories to source an article. Which text-string from WP:NOTNEWS justifies the deletion of an article based on how it reads? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:06, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Masem, BALONEY! This is just a difference in editorial judgement and/or approach as to style of writing and the significance of this particular topic. You apparently don't like the writing style, think there is "too much detail", and are not interested in the topic. Well so what? There are lots of articles in WP that if I had written or contributed to them I would have done so differently, or in which I have no interest (such as video games), but I have never considered any of those to be grounds to seek to have them deleted or to deny access to them to anyone else. There is also nothing wrong with "newspaper style" which can be highly consistent with good encylodpedic prose as a way to provide a neutral, unbiased recitation of facts describing a series of events.
The "circumstances" under which this or any other article may have been created are irrelevant as well. WP Articles are started and built for just about as many different specific reasons as there are articles in the project, and there is absolutely no policy or guideline that limits what those reasons may be. Nothing in this article is a violation of any "policy or guideline" that justifies deletion, but is instead just a difference of opinion you personally have with the community at large as to how it should be constructed. Again you continue to fail to offer any reason whatsoever as to how or why deleting this article (which has already been visited over 2,000 times in the week since it was created) would in any way benefit or improve the project. So please stop conflating your personal editorial judgement with the constraints of WP policy and guidelines. They are just not the same thing!! (22,291) Centpacrr (talk) 02:14, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- AFDs are about personal judgments, backed up by policy and guideline. Just as others claim I'm making personal judgements, claims of this event being "important" and the like are personal judgments too. It's up to the closer to decide which is the stronger argument. --MASEM (t) 02:50, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - And fwiw, I'm going to voluntarily disengage from this (not changing my decision) only because its clear I can't convince those that want to keep the article that there's serious problems with it. The elephant in the room, the fact this article was purposely created to get around NFCC issues as Tarc identified, remains, and that's a serious problem. --MASEM (t) 02:57, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I think the article's fine, no elephants visible from here. Rothorpe (talk) 03:23, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neither differences of editors' individual editorial judgement, approach, and/or interest in a topic, or speculation as to the reason why an individual editor may have been moved to start an article, are valid reasons to delete an article because none of these violate any WP policy and/or guidelines. Your or anyone else's personal belief that an article may have been "purposely created to get around NFCC issues" is also not an "elephant in the room" but instead a red herring as even if it were true that would not violate any WP policy or guideline either. Based on both the original statement of Tarc as proposer (who curiously has made only two brief postings in here in support of his position after that and none in more than an week) and of the many by Masem (especially his last one immediately above), the real and only reason both seem to want this article to be deleted is because of their personal speculation that it was created to avoid the opening of additional forum shopped discussions to achieve consensus that the Hendrix booking photograph failed NFCC. All the other arguments advanced for deletion now seem to me to have been invented purely to "get around" their failure to get that image deleted in at least three previous attempts. (Sort of ironic isn't it?)
WP's deletion policy states that "Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases. The content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used first. ... Disagreement over a policy or guideline is not dealt with by deleting it [the article]." It is also not the function of the closing admin to impose his or her personal opinion in closing an AfD, but to faithfully reflect the consensus of the community. Centpacrr (talk) 03:27, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- As to Masem's statement: "If what was added was bad for the bio article, separating and expanding it is worse", that's utter nonsense. WP:UNDUE specifically addresses this, mentioning the articles "Earth" and "Flat Earth". Flat Earth is undue weight to mention at "Earth", Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories is undue weight to mention at "Barack Obama"; WP:UNDUE is precisely the reason these articles exist. So if the arrest and drug charges are undue weight to mention at "Jimi Hendrix", they belong in a separate article. Pretty simple! Joefromrandb (talk) 04:24, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely, Joefromrandb, and this seems to be a perfect example of the flawed misapplication of "policy" that I pointed out in my comment immediately above. Centpacrr (talk) 15:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per Flatscan, "This spin-off article does not comply with WP:Copying within Wikipedia". I also cite WP:IAR. Unscintillating (talk) 16:06, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just because I forgot to add a link to the main article in the creation edit summary is not reason enough to delete the entire article. Also, I wrote 75–90% of the 700 words I used to "seed" the new article, which is now more than 3,000 words long, and Cullen wrote the rest, so if anyone has been cheated of their attribution its Cullen. Sorry, Cullen328; I should have linked to the main article (although I think the edit summary implies where it came from) and I hope that you can forgive me. I wasn't trying to usurp your attribution. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:14, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unscintillating, alleging a supposed violation of WP:Copying within Wikipedia is just about the pettiest and least valid (actually not valid at all) of proposed grounds to delete an article reliably sourced from 16 books and a variety of other published sources. Then proposing using as a reason to justify deletion "ignoring all rules" that support why it should be retained, however, takes the cake. Really. Centpacrr (talk) 16:51, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, at least Unscintillating is properly referring to it as a WP:SPINOFF instead of a "POV fork". "Since what qualifies as a "POV fork" is itself based on a POV judgement, do not refer to forks as "POV" except in extreme cases of persistent disruptive editing. Instead, apply Wikipedia's policy that requires a neutral point of view: regardless of the reasons for making the fork, it still must be titled and written in a neutral point of view." The new article is written from a neutral POV. Doc talk 00:37, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:UNDUE refers to obtaining balance within articles and has no bearing on whether an independent subarticle should exist or not. I agree with some of the commenters above that en.wiki's policies about when the existence of a subarticle is appropriate are not well developed, but I would lean toward the side of having more information rather than less in the encyclopedia. This article is well-sourced and informative for readers who are seeking information beyond what the main article on Jimi Hendrix provides. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:52, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While we're looking at this article, it needs to be renamed to Canadian drug charges and trial of Jimi Hendrix to follow standard nomenclature of subarticles of biographies p b p 19:43, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PbP, I agree. If the article is kept it will be renamed as you've suggested. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:46, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Scotland Green N17 London

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

Nothing notable about this street, obvious OR with no refs. We are not a gazetteer of every London street Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 20:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 20:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just another street. Mangoe (talk) 21:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN. -- Alexf^(talk) 00:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The bar for elements of the gazetteer is low. Public roads in modern countries pass WP:GNG, as drivers have an interest in their locations and functionality; and the media, map makers, and government agencies respond. I found a "Scotland Green" associated with "N17" on Google maps. Assuming that this is the road in [the unreferenced] article, it is a couple of blocks long. WP:STREET is an essay that recommends that only major streets in cities need individual articles, which this street is not. I also concur that there is an appearance of a problem with the policy WP:OR. Unscintillating (talk) 17:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. As everyone says. However, will one of the people involved go add some kind of source to at least prove existence. & renominate any one of them where they cannot find it. DGG ( talk ) 01:53, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhu

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

All articles are unverified, unreferenced redundant content forks which duplicates the information on the page Anantnag. In the vast majority of cases, the only content of these articles is that the village exists. I left a message on the creator's talk page after nominating a number of the articles for deletion via WP:PROD. The creator removed the PROD without explaining why in either the edit summaries or the talk pages. These new articles are not constructive. They all use a similar introduction that states the subject village is one of 105 such villages in the area. There is no need for each of these 105 villages to have an article of it's own. N4 (talk) 17:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the reasons above:

You won't believe how much of a pain it was to do that. All the best. N4 (talk) 17:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Irrespective of their seemingly small sizes and seemingly templated prose formats, we keep articles of villages where a reliable source is present to prove the village/settlement exists. I and others would add a # opposite all the articles listed above for the ones where reference of its existence is noted in the article. Nominator's mass-AfD is non-constructive and not the creator's creation of articles. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:14, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just noting that, per WP:NPLACE, a common outcome is that articles on even small villages are usually kept if the village's existence can be verified by a reliable source. The backing for this is, as far as I know, the essay WP:GEOLAND --Mark viking (talk) 12:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all These all appear to be verifiable settlements, and AfD precedent has been that all verifiable settlements are considered notable. If any of them are unverifiable, they should be nominated on an individual basis rather than as a batch nomination, as these sorts of nominations aren't really useful for debating the merits of each article individually. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 20:07, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all, if they can be verified in a reliable source, and note that the last two are rivers, not villages. Also note that an Indian "village" sometimes has a population in the thousands, compared to United States "cities" with populations of 173 (eg Fifty-Six, Arkansas). PamD 21:14, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, after trying to stub-sort those two rivers and finding it difficult to work out whether they're in India or Pakistan, I'm having my doubts about them ... but it would be better to have individual AfDs about each article, not a blanket nomination as we have here. Keep the lot for now, without prejudice to individual AfDs for any individual articles (including probably the two unsourced, unmapped, rivers). PamD 21:58, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I took a look at one of the articles, Sadura. It is a functional stub with a map, a fact about the village (it has a railway station), coordinates, and two references. It would be nice to have the population. Unscintillating (talk) 00:10, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, All has been said in earlier comments. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 10:34, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:26, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Falcon" spetsnaz soldier

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

I find it hard to determine what this article is even about: a kind of military unit, surely, but of what country (Georgia? Russia? Azerbaijan?) is not clear. I also see no reliable sources, and the tone is rather promotional at times (although the grammar is so bad that it's hard to make out what exactly is claimed). QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:51, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, judging from this page it looks like it's an Azerbaijani unit. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 20:19, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 20:20, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I know it is not a perfect page. But popular subject. Non-english, but still. OccultZone (Talk) 07:27, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to claim existence of a 'Falcon' special unit in the Azerbaijan Internal Troops. However there's nothing here that could be merged to Internal Troops of Azerbaijan. Would need to be coherent and have references. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hard to see what it's actually about. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:31, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Incomprehensible Nick-D (talk) 22:41, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am slightly surprised that no previous participant in this discussion seems to have looked at the Azerbaijani version of this article and tried putting it through Google Translate - to save anybody else the bother, though, it comes out word by word the same as this article. I suspect that the Azerbaijani article actually makes sense, and that Google is simply rather poor at translating Azerbaijani into English. If we have anyone here who understands Azerbaijani, the original article also contains some external links. However, I note that the couple that were originally in the translation have since been deleted by the nominator because they linked to Youtube - the rest don't seem to be to Youtube, but what looked like the most promising was to a dead link. There could be a notable topic here, but if so, Google Translate is simply nowhere near up to the job and better references would be needed. Finally, the article creator's edits, at least on English Wikipedia, all look like Google translations from Azerbaijani - he or she would be well advised to learn enough English to understand just how horrible those translations are before they try making any further edits here. PWilkinson (talk) 23:52, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Low-energy vehicle

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

De-proded article which needs broader discussion. Although one could say that the term is not exactly neologism, it is still used mainly by different social media (including mirrors of Wikipedia) and some car manufacturers as a promoting term for hybrid cars. The definition provided by the article is not supported by reliable sources and the article seems to be largely unsourced original research and coatrack. No reference used in this article use this term. The reasoning for PROD by anon user was:

this article has no references calling this thing a "low energy vehicle", and is written more like a buying guide than an article, and appears to contravene WP:OR and WP:COATRACK being more about vehicle efficiency than low energy; according to the talk page, this has been a problematic WP:SOAPBOXy article since 2008

The term seems to be also a synonym for fuel-efficient car. The relevant article in Wikipedia links to Fuel efficiency.

There is a proposal to merge this article to Motorised_quadricycle. It may be relevant regarding some minor part of this article but in general due to OR issues it would be better to delete it. Beagel (talk) 16:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is a coatrack for one man's opinions on transport. It is an unsalvageable mess of OR and NPOV. I don't think we ever found a decent RS for the term LEV, which is not surprising since it is so ambiguous. Greglocock (talk) 20:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 20:24, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Greglocock. The term seems to be purely a personal concoction and the ideas expressed better fit within articles dealing with fuel-efficient car and Green vehicle. NealeFamily (talk) 00:28, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete filled with OR with no RS or any other sort of references using the term LEV, and has been problematic since 2008. -- 70.24.244.161 (talk) 12:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect somewhere, possibly after deletion. It's as of the time of this edit redirected to Fuel economy in automobiles. ₆an⁶sh₆ 20:49, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see no purpose in a redirect since one of the main stumbling blocks with the article is that the phrase LEV can only be found in this article and its mirrors. Why perpetuate a neologism used only on wiki? Greglocock (talk) 22:37, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe in reliable sources, but a google search comes up with plenty of hits, meaning it's a potential search term. ₆an⁶sh₆ 01:06, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"low energy vehicle" is inherently POV. There's usage for low production energy, the energy needed to build the vehicle in the first place, which has nothing to do with what's found on the article right now. And an electric golf cart uses low energy, as does a moped, so what qualifies as a low energy vehicle is too subjective without actual quality usage, with the diversity of uses, at most if this exists, it would be a disambiguation page, redirection just leaves out one usage or another. -- 70.24.244.161 (talk) 04:39, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If so, then maybe create a dab for it. Nothing's off the table at this point, really, except keeping it. ₆an⁶sh₆ 04:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/redirect - This article was preemptively redirected. Merging doesn't require an afd discussion, if not done during an afd. I can import this to Wikiversity if anyone wants to continue it there with original research. - Sidelight 12 ^Talk 04:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've undone the redirecting, as the AfD is still open. While an AfD is open redirecting = blanking and is out of process. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:53, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, merging any unique and useful content into such articles as fuel efficiency, hybrid vehicle, etc. As it stands, this feels like a good effort at an encyclopaedic topic, but too much of a neologism when there are plenty of other articles on topic. – Kieran T ^(talk) 13:53, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. This is a mixture of a WP:SNOW deletion, a speedy deletion as having no context, and a speedy deletion as a hoax. JamesBWatson (talk) 22:12, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ATARI-TV

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

Contested PROD. I can't find any television station (or anything for that matter) that goes by this name. I was almost inclined to speedy it for lack of context. Chris857 (talk) 16:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 20:24, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 20:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or maybe Userfy. Is this an article? I'm not seeing any content. Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:47, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Common garden variety 'fantasy TV network' vandal who doesn't understand we don't host this stuff here. Nate • (chatter) 21:05, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:27, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Causal layered analysis

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

This is a promotional piece designed to broadcast the ideas of one Sohail Inayatullah, whose bio I just deleted under wp:g11. Significantly edited by Sohail Inayatullah (talk · contribs) and all the references are related to Sohail Inayatullah or his "metafuture" organization. I allow the possibility that CLA is a real thing outside of the ideas of Sohail Inayatullah, but I invoke WP:TNT. Perhaps someone who understands these things can stub it with some reliable sourcing in lieu of deletion, that would be fine. Otherwise, delete -- Y not? 16:32, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 20:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary: Causal Layered Analysis is a highly regarded futures methodology, well-cited and widely used. I realise that the editors here may not be familiar with futures studies, but although CLA was originally developed by Sohail Inayatullah, it is not a personal vehicle for him. It is possible that the text needs clarifying but deletion would be an error that would diminish Wikipedia's credibility in this area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thereflector (talk • contribs) 12:39, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please Keep It. I have been using CLA in my professional work as a strategist and have been teaching it to students from around the world. I teach it along with more traditional tools of strategy and foresight such as game theory, scenario planning and others, and my students always tell me how CLA adds a completely new dimension to their thinking and approach that other methods can't provide. I myself learned about it in a graduate program in a university (not taught by Dr Inayatullah). The fact that the author of this approach happens to be alive and practicing the method he developed isn't a reason enough to delete it. Futures is a relatively young discipline and a lot of its pioneers are still alive. Does that mean we can't use Wikipidia to spread their work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hwarang7 (talk • contribs) 13:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as incoherent gibberish. Part of me thinks this is some sort of bizarre commentary on the use of buzzwords and non-sequitirs in philosophy, but that still doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:29, 18 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete or merge. While futures techniques are probably notable, this consists entirely of original research. Bearian (talk) 18:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. With the observation that this discussion has been so corrupted by socking and other hijinx that it's difficult to determine what are real arguments and what are "plastic !votes". Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:33, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Plastic shaman

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

WP:WINAD and WP:NPOV Fbunny (talk) 16:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is far more than a dictionary entry, and the notability of the subject is well-established in published literature. The article has been around for six years and is well cited. -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]
Keep. No idea how this could be viewed as a dictionary page. It has numerous sources, satisfying both WP:V and WP:NOTABILITY. If the nominator has identified POV issues, it would be better to simply tag the article or, better yet, fix them. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 17:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Pastic Shamans have a history in the US and beyond that needs far more coverage than an etymology statement in a dictionary could provide. For this reason, nominator's WP:WINAD argument falls short. WP:NPOV is not a reason for deletion, unless it falls under WP:SOAP. I believe there are enough pulished sources available to keep this article from being accused of propoganda. Dkreisst (talk) 19:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per above. Article needs work, but is well supported by the references. Rwessel (talk) 21:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Classic example of systemic bias against Native people, that their culture can be hijacked. Notable, adequate sources, and so on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montanabw (talk • contribs)

*Delete. The term 'plastic shaman' is adequately explained as a dictionary term. Crediting Ward Churchill who claims to be native despite the objection of the Keetowah Cherokee tribe he claims to be from is not credible. Neither is the reference to the website New Age Frauds and Plastic Shamans. The site run by Alton Carroll who claims to be a Mescalero Apache contrary to representatives of the tribe also hurts the credibility of the article. At the very least these references should be reconsidered. Bill A Armstrong (talk) 01:52, 11 February 2014 (UTC) Blocked sock. Pigman☿/talk 21:39, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Uyvsdi; WP:DICT does not apply here, and any POV or sourcing issues would be addressed by editing, not deletion. --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete This entry is referred to on the New Age Fraud and Plastic Shamans site to try and legitimize their own site. It's bootstrapping. It is not a neutral article, it is also slang/jargon, and alternative viewpoints are not being given equal weight. My points on Uydsvi's talk page are deleted rather than being addressed. There is a current court case in Oklahoma State Court Case No. CJ-2009-10887 (Civil relief more than $10,000 LIBEL / SLANDER) regarding the NewAgeFraud.org site. This site has been removed repeatedly from Yahoo, for the last time in 2007. It has been dropped repeatedly by other "anonymous" hosting providers, most recently by Katz Global in 2013. This article is also about a spiritual/religious topic that is not a black and white issue. Who is to say whose spirituality is right or wrong. The reference that the NAFPS discusses "potentially plastic shamans" is misleading. In fact they declare people frauds through nothing other than Internet research. The link to the movie "White Shamans and Plastic Medicine Men" is also offensive. Shaman is a European term and the Sami and other traditional cultures that originated the term do in fact have white skin. I agree with Bill Armstrong in regards to the Churchill reference. He is a proven plagiarist who was dismissed from the university he taught at for academic violations. His appeals of this dismissal were all lost all the way to the Supreme Court. He is not a credible source and his inclusion proves the bias of this article. 24.212.187.116 (talk) 05:37, 11 February 2014 (UTC) Blocked sock. Pigman☿/talk 21:39, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is a discussion to delete the Plastic shaman article, not the website you're fixated on. Shaman is actually Asian in origin, not European, coming from the Tungusic languages. -Uyvsdi (talk) 06:14, 11 February 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]
Comment: IP 24.212.187.116, this is not the place for issues other than to keep or delete the article, its content is for the talk page of the article itself. It is also not the place to whine a out what Uyvsdi does on one's own user talk page. People can delete stuff from their talk. Montanabw^(talk) 08:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The point isn't if Uyvdsdi has the right to delete things from his talk page, it's that the discussion necessary to establish neutrality is not happening. This is the same point I'm making about NAFPS, their claims are opinions and there are many other opinions that the site is not credible which are not being given equal weight or any weight at all. 24.212.187.116 (talk) 14:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article's talk page is the appropriate place to discuss issues with the article, i.e. Talk:Plastic shaman. -Uyvsdi (talk) 18:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

Comment: Uyvdsdi's talk page is not the correct place to have a discussion about the neutrality of an article, so his deletion of anything on his talk page remains irrelevant. Rwessel (talk) 18:37, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Rules, rules, rules, if Uyvdsi cares so much about the topic he/she should welcome a debate on his/her page. 24.212.187.116 (talk) 05:11, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you're not taking Wikipedia seriously anymore, why should your harassment of Uyvsdi be tolerated on his talk page, much less here? Ian.thomson (talk) 05:18, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Harassment? Ha! You guys crack me up. You are more serious about making allegations and quoting Wikipedia rules than you are about defending the content of this article.24.212.187.116 (talk) 05:30, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Let me explain why I labeled it WP:WINAD. Aside from the numerous POV problems with the page which have been documented on the talk page for years without anyone being able to solve the issue, this article has a fundamental problem: its very title is non-neutral. It purports to deal with a practice of illegitimate appropriate by outsiders of elements of native spiritual practice. This very notion is POV. The term "plastic shaman" is self-evidently derogatory, and this term is used to delegitimize anyone who borrows anything from native practices but does not have adequate kinship. Essentially it reserves legitimate use of the notion of shaman to native cultures and their specificities. This does not describe present day reality. The term is also derogatory and POV in that it stigmatizes taking payment for services. However, the role of money in exchanges in developed economies cannot be compared with its role in tribal societies. Some may dislike this and view it with cynicism, but this is hardly NPOV. The view of some native peoples that their culture is misused by outsiders seems to me a legitimate matter to report, but preferably within another article dealing with this topic (which probably would not only discuss shamanism I guess). At a stretch, an article devoted to this topic with a neutral title might be OK. But using a term which is intrinsically POV seems completely inappropriate for an encyclopedia. That is why I think the definition of "plastic shaman" should be merely a dictionary item, and anything else of value in the article (which is anyway rather little) either retitled or preferably moved as a reference/section within for example shamanism, neoshamanism or core shamanism where it can be put into sufficient context to make it NPOV. For me, honestly, this is an open and shut case. Fbunny (talk) 10:16, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fbunny, according to WP:POVTITLE:
When the subject of an article is referred to mainly by a single common name, as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language reliable sources, Wikipedia generally follows the sources and uses that name as its article title (subject to the other naming criteria). Sometimes that common name includes non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids (e.g. the Boston Massacre or the Teapot Dome scandal). In such cases, the prevalence of the name, or the fact that a given description has effectively become a proper noun (and that proper noun has become the usual term for the event), generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue.

Here, the large number of reliable sources that use the term "plastic shaman", as indicated by the article's references section, should "override[] concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue". –Prototime (talk · contribs) 16:16, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Boston Massacre example is hardly comparable and in any case factually wrong. The "large number of reliable sources" using this exact term consists of exactly one (judging at least by their titles), i.e. note 3, an article in a journal. This does not make it an established term for something specific. It seems more like an expression coined by Kehoe in 1990 for rhetorical effect and used only occasionally since; and even that expression seems more commonly "plastic medicine men" (an alternative I would find considerably less prejudicial as "medicine man" is not an expression in widespread global use). Furthermore, my point is not merely that the title is POV but that it inevitably gives rise to an article which is POV, which seems to me a consensus position of all commentators other than those who have looked at the question from the narrow standpoint of cultural appropriation of native American traditions - which is a perfectly valid standpoint, and one which I would sympathize with within the narrow range of phenomena which is actually being considered by these contributors, but is only a small part of the inspiration behind non-native shamanism globally and inevitably POV. Thus: Plastic Shaman is not an established term for a specific phenomenon, and the article represents a biased account of that phenomenon, which it also labels misleadingly Fbunny (talk) 17:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If you want to propose a name change, the guidelines are available at: Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves. -Uyvsdi (talk) 18:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]
Comment: Much of the above is, in fact, another POV, and from what I can tell, a minority one (willing to be corrected, of course). Like it or not, the discussion of the appropriateness of the acquisition, particularly for one's profit, of another’s culture, artifacts, etc., has been going on a long time. That side of the debate may well be missing from the article (I am, however, not sure how much weight that POV requires - from what I've heard, my inclination would be "modest", but I am, of course willing to be convinced otherwise). In any event, you've argued for adding more coverage of the alternate POV and perhaps a name change for the article, not deletion. Rwessel (talk) 18:37, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The authors of the article have not managed to make it NPOV, and nor has anyone else over the - at least - 8 years it is in existence, despite frequent insistence on the talk page that it is POV. I conclude from this that it cannot and will not be made NPOV and hence should be deleted. I think this is crystal clear. However, since I am not paid to enforce WP policies, I personally would settle for changing the name and flagging the new article as having POV issues. If there is consensus on this, I would be willing to drop the deletion request. However, I maintain my view that the article should consistent with WP policy be deleted. Can I get views from those who propose to keep the article if they are happy to rename it "Plastic medicine man" and to restore the POV flag? In this case I will also make some further edits myself to the article to make clear that there is a distinction between fraudsters who go round pretending to have access to the wisdom traditions of this or that culture (most of whom BTW are not Westerners but members of the culture itself), and people who practice neoshamanism in ways which merely draw on elements of native culture, without purporting to be some sort of authentic continuation of that culture. Is that acceptable? (Also to those who are pro-deletion?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fbunny (talk • contribs) 09:02, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A name change to plastic medicine men would be an improvement and somewhat more accurate description but it is still not deserving of it's own page. It belongs as a section of the shamanism page. Terms such as false shaman or pseudo shaman are just as accurate without the POV baggage of the plastic shaman term. There is no Wikipedia page for quack which is a much more recognized term. There has been no NPOV reached in 8 years because it is inherently a POV term. My POV is that this is in part due to the fact that no traditional tribal elders would a) use the Internet in this way, or b)criticize people in this way in any medium. Medicine men and women recognized by their tribes have always accepted offerings for their services, including money. Finding the line between a traditional offering and selling out is splitting a hair. The only people who can split this hair are the members of someone's own tribe or group. There is no way for this page to become NPOV.Msc008 (talk) 15:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quackery. Yes, tribal elders are on the internet discussing topics like these, though more likely on Facebook than Wikipedia. -Uyvsdi (talk) 16:44, 12 February 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

Indeed. - Slàn, Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 19:04, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You realize it is Idle No More and not Idol No More right? Traditional beliefs tend more towards letting the universe decide who is a fraud not judging by who has the most likes on Facebook. This is not just a Native American concept. Karma baby. We are all hypocrites to some degree and we all make mistakes, including 'authentic' medicine men. You two seem determined to prove yourselves 'right' in an area where there is no 'right' only shades of grey. Everything happens for a reason including people dying in a James Arthur Ray sweatlodge. If arguing that you are the cultural warrior fighting against injustice makes you sleep better at night than keep it up. I for one have learned something through this debate and that is not to take Wikipedia seriously.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.212.187.116 (talk • contribs)

"You ... seem determined to prove yourselfs 'right' in an area where there is no 'right' only shades of grey": Pot, meet kettle.

"I for one have learned something through this debate and that is not to take Wikipedia seriously": If that's your attitude, why should anyone take your continued activity seriously, or regard your continued posts as anything but WP:GRIEFING or even trolling? Ian.thomson (talk) 05:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Take it however you want. That's up to you. If anything is pot and kettle it's calling my comments trolling. All the Wikipedia trolling is what has helped launch Citizendium and other efforts. I'm not saying I'm right I'm saying none of us are right. 24.212.187.116 (talk) 05:27, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can only agree. I was just trying to find a compromise... but it is a pretty lame one I have to acknowledge. The problem is that this discussion mainly features, as is understandable, people with a vested interest in keeping the article and willing to creatively interpret WP policy to that end. What is needed is an impartial review (I mean in addition to the one we have already given it...). Unfortunately while it is obvious to me that this article should be deleted I do not have enough experience of WP to know how to go about building whatever consensus to that end is required. PMM is also a poor title, what this article is really about is "allegations of misappropriation of cultural shamanic traditions by imposters and moral qualification of the same". The ludicrous nature of any title which would actually be descriptive of the content goes to show that this is not an article, but merely a (minor) comment on another article.Fbunny (talk) 16:41, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should WP:AGF and not cast aspersions on the motivations of other editors here. If nothing else, it doesn't exactly keep the discussion on point. Consensus is consensus. If you wish to alter it, it'll happen by the strengths of your arguments. Even if you're fully convinced that your position is correct, the consensus may go the other way. Maybe you're right, and the others are wrong. Or maybe vice versa. But no matter which way it goes, *someone* is going to be disappointed. I've "lost" more than a few battles. C’est la vie. Rwessel (talk) 21:02, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not casting any aspersions, as I said it is perfectly natural that those who take an interest in the article are those connected with it. This bias is inherent, and nothing to do with the particular users and the particular subject. Fbunny (talk) 12:01, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Further on this problem, see Public_choice#Special_interests. Again, having a POV does not mean not being in good faith; it just means that it is hard for the common interest to prevail given Rational ignorance, certainly if arguments are not weighed qualitatively Fbunny (talk) 14:17, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. The title and article are POV, and the credibility of the references are questionable. The edit history of the article shows this. Uyvsdi is correct in saying shaman is 'Asian' in a cultural/language sense. Technically Northern Scandanavia and neighboring Russia were the term shaman origninates are in Europe as 24.212.187.116 notes. Msc008 (talk) 20:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC) Blocked sock. Pigman☿/talk 21:39, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Uyvsdi. - Slàn, Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 01:20, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Oversight/Arbcomm has been notified about the hounding and privacy issues. - Slàn, Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 20:35, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Members of ArbComm are now looking at this AfD as there has been significant sockpuppetting and hounding among the "deletes". Experienced editors know about looking for SPA's in these discussions, and the use of logged-out editing to sockpuppet. Without disclosing users' IPs here, I'll simply say that that issue is very relevant here. - Slàn, Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 21:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CommentArbCom is being notified about the User: Conflict of Interest and non-Neutral Point of View issues with the Kathryn NicDhana user in regards to the Plastic Shaman articleChiefClancyWiggam (talk) 02:05, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It should be noted that a sockpuppet investigation has been opened on some of the participants in this discussion. It hasn't been evaluated yet by a CheckUser admin but I'm reasonably certain most of those accounts will be tied together. Cheers, Pigman☿/talk 02:40, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and run Checkusers on most of the delete votes Article is well sourced and subject is notable, the sockpuppetry in the deletenut gallery is unacceptable and a sign of either sockpuppetry or off site collusion. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:45, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Run Checkusers on most of the keep votes. As yet, none of the objections to the article have even been remotely addressed and it seems there is a preference for playing games. Actually I have no idea what "checkusers" is but I can imagine that those voting "keep" are mostly or all linked to the http://www.newagefraud.org/ site, which seems to "like" this article a lot.Fbunny (talk) 12:01, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can't vote multiple times, and if you don't know what "checkusers" means, then look it up instead of parroting what other editors are saying. It's easy to find out how established users are by their editing histories. It's suspicious when multiple accounts appear out of nowhere and have only contributed to this deletion discussion: [2]. The IPs and your account seem obsessed with this website, which appears to be the end game. The IP couldn't successfully removed the website, so you want to have the entire article deleted. Wikipedia is not censored. -Uyvsdi (talk) 13:55, 13 February 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

Ah, sorry, didn't want to vote multiple times! I have deleted that. I have not checked how established any users are, on either site of the debate. I have nothing to do with any of the others, but whether they have anything in common I cannot of course say. For the rest I am not quite sure what you are saying. I think it is a very valuable public service to expose frauds or even merely to put information in the public domain which allows others to make up their minds. I just wonder how so many people came so quickly to know that I had proposed this article for deletion, if that fact had not somehow been brought to their attention. I don't even "want" the article to be deleted, it merely seems to me that it should be deleted. I have nothing against the website and don't know any of the other people who have argued here for deletion. Hope this clarifies. Fbunny (talk) 14:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All of the "keep" votes are from editors with thousands of edits, to hundreds or thousands of different articles, and years of history at WP. And heck, unless I missed someone, I'm the baby with only 2300 edits. The probability that any are socks of each other, or are all part of some cabal tied to a specific website (and there you went and did it again) seems pretty darn low. Of course, that a bunch of relatively experienced editors feel one way is hardly definitive proof of the correctness of that position. As to notification, anyone who has ever edited the page would by default have it on their watchlist (it can be removed from a watchlist, of course), and would have been notified via their watchlist as soon as the AfD was put on the page. For a quick scan of the list on contributors, that would appear to cover at least five of the "keep" votes. Nor are AfD's any secret, if you'd like to see all of them, just watch Wikipedia:Afd. Rwessel (talk) 05:40, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well we agree at least on the point that the majority is not necessarily correct, and you have not contradicted my, I believe, uncontroversial point that this majority may have a specific angle on the question. It is notable that none of my points pro-deletion are addressed and that none of the points regarding POV were ever addressed in the 8+ year history of the article. You yourself say it "needs work". Are you or any of the other editors and keep voters willing to do this work? I would like to see an article which does NOT claim that the appropriation of certain elements of native cultures by persons not associated with those cultures is ipso facto proof that the latter are charlatans. I am happy that the article may say that this is the view of certain groups and even that certain people who act in this way may indeed be charlatans, but there is NO consensus that native groups have some sort of intellectual property rights to their symbolic universe which others may not touch. There is also no consensus that asking for or accepting money is ipso facto evidence of being in the category of charlatan: everyone has a right to live from their work. After 8+ years, surely someone can make this clear and take responsibility for their vote to keep the article by accepting that it needs to be NPOV? Fbunny (talk) 09:08, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fbunny wrote: "there is NO consensus that native groups have some sort of intellectual property rights to their symbolic universe" Yes, there is. There have been many statements by tribal councils (Cheyenne River) and groups of Elders (real ones from the communities in question, not the fraudulent ones set up by cultural outsiders to exploit the idea of "elder" for personal profit - Lakota Declaration of War is one). Then there's the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples:

Article 31 1. "Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their cultural heritage, traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions, as well as the manifestations of their sciences, technologies and cultures, including human and genetic resources, seeds, medicines, knowledge of the properties of fauna and flora, oral traditions, literatures, designs, sports and traditional games and visual and performing arts. They also have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their intellectual property over such cultural heritage, traditional knowledge, and traditional cultural expressions." -CITEREFUN200811, e-wiki note, source text from UN Website

(bolding added). See also Indigenous intellectual property, which it looks like is also under attack per "I don't like it". And that's just a start. These things are serious, documented issues for Indigenous people. If you are unaware of that, may I gently suggest you gain more familiarity with the field. Your entire argument for deletion, and that of the entire sockdrawer, boils down to WP:DONTLIKE- Slàn, Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 19:04, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indigenous people is everyone in the world, we are all from somewhere. Even if the delete votes boiled down to DON'T LIKE (which they don't) what does that prove? You want to frame it as 'don't like' because you think that makes your argument, but it doesn't. You need the 'don't like' sentiment to exist to prove your point that you are not an outsider but a cultural warrior fighting for the Lakota or Cheyenne or whoever it is you think you stand with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.212.187.116 (talk) 04:51, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removing something because you don't like it is censorship. Wikipedia is not censored. Would you have us remove our articles on evolution, women's rights, and the Holocaust? No? You mean you're not a Nazi? Then don't say "take this off because I don't like it." Ian.thomson (talk) 05:01, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only person who said 'take this off because I don't like it' is you. You just proved my point that you need 'don't like' to exist to validate yourself. 24.212.187.116 (talk) 05:17, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article appears well cited with reliable and verifiable sources. I'm rather confused about the accusations of "keep" votes here being connected with the internet forum New Age Frauds and Plastic Shamans. The site appears to be a very small part of the article's sourcing and citation. Cheers, Pigman☿/talk 19:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The issue is all the sources but one do not use the term plastic shaman.Msc008 (talk) 00:30, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For my part this may have been an overreaction to being lumped in with the sockpuppet accusation, with which I very clearly have nothing to do (and this could easily have been verified before making the accusation). The question is not about reliable and verifiable sources, it is about whether the term "plastic shaman" is really appropriate and has passed into general use (I argue no, and the article does not provide evidence to the contrary) and whether the POV problems, which several of the defensors of the article even accept, can EVER be solved given its intrinsic nature. If they haven't been solved in the last 8 years, I would argue this is strong evidence they never will be. Fbunny (talk) 09:18, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to get into a POV discussion here, since this is the place for a deletion discussion (talk page of article would be the place for the POV discussion); however, you'll want to read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, especially Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Anglo-American focus, and then Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, because, as a tertiary source, Wikipedia goes by what's been published in secondary published literature. -Uyvsdi (talk) 14:49, 14 February 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

You continue simply to ignore the point I am making. Fbunny (talk) 16:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because this is a deletion discussion, and I have already voiced my disagreement to your proposal. -Uyvsdi (talk) 16:19, 14 February 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

Wikipedia's rules favor consensus over truth and are being used here to avoid a discussion of the real problems with this article. The editors that win an argument are the ones who have the most time to waste arguing rules and sitting at a keyboard. On controversial subjects like this, the editors with the most biased point of view win out as they have the most to lose, and therein lies the systematic bias. The best Wikipedia editors are ones who edit few topics with accuracy. The ones who edit many topics do so with the least accuracy. The fluffing up of this article with the 'Part of a series on indigenous rights' textbox and notes and further readings with sources that don't use the term only makes it less authoritative. Now instead of having a short article on a subject that is not listed in any real encyclopedia you have a long poorly written one that is listed nowhere else. More does not equal better, in this article, or in Wikipedia in general. Wikipedia has grown in popularity while simultaneously becoming less authoritative and the trend continues. 24.212.187.116 (talk) 04:38, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia favors consensus over "truth" because "truth" is subjective and consensus is closer to being objective. As for whether or not this topic appears in encyclopedias, there are other academic sources besides those tertiary sources, such as secondary sources like documentaries, scholarly journals, and books by professional authorities on sociology, religious studies, and related fields -- and that's what the article cites. And what do your ad hominem attacks against the site have to do with this discussion? Do you have any real arguments, or just temper tantrums? Ian.thomson (talk) 05:01, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus like the 1933 German Federal election? Like Churchill said 'Democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others we've tried.' That's Winston not Ward. My comments on the authoritativeness of Wikipedia are ones that have been made in scholarly journals and by professional authorities. Hardly ad hominem or an attack. Merely my observations. If I'm having a temper tantrum why I am laughing so hard?24.212.187.116 (talk) 05:36, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The widely available sourcing suggests that this is a notable concept, which can be treated in an encyclopedic fashion. The article itself does not appear to need being deleted to achieve NPOV, there are editorial ways to do that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:59, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The term "plastic shaman" has no more passed into general use than the terms "false shaman" or "pseudo shaman". Google any of those terms and you get roughly 3,000 results. Google "plastic medicine man" and you get about 400,000 results. The question is not about the right to culturual inttelectual property, it is about who it is making these claims. There is a big difference between a tribe, say Oglala Lakota issuing a statement about culturual appropriation and an Internet site of activists not from the tribe objecting to the same thing. Msc008 (talk) 23:41, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Of all the sources cited in the notes and references, only one of them actually uses the term "plastic shaman" - notes item 4. The New Age Fraud and Plastic Shamans site speaks to a point that has been on the Plasstic Shaman talk page for some time. Which is that the plastic shaman articl is in itself plastic. The person who credits himself with running the site has himself been accused of misrepresenting his cultural background. In a court of law you have to have standing to bring a claim of fraud. For instance if you are suing someone for infringing on a Starbucks trademark you have to work for Starbucks. If you work for Dunkin Donuts you can't bring a suit for infringment of Starbucks trademark. It sounds ridiculous but that's exactly what that site is doing with native american culture. This is why this article has never been able to acheive neutrality. Uyvsdi's reference to the quakery wiki page is a good exmaple. The plastic shaman page would have to be "plastic shamanery" to mimic that example, and the subject is clearly not worthy of such a page. Msc008 (talk) 00:28, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be a little more precise about the Google results, Msc008, "Plastic Shaman" = 8,960 results, "pseudo shaman" = 2,060 hits, "false shaman = 3,580 hits, and "plastic medicine man" = 326,000 hits. I also encourage you to take a closer look at the article as it stands now, particularly the sources, which appear to be substantially expanded. At a glance, it looks like seven of the sources include the phrase "plastic shaman". Cheers, Pigman☿/talk 02:48, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Don't try and make it a precise number it isn't. "plastic medicine man" yields 375,000 results, the other three are all two orders of magnitude smaller. Going from one of eleven sources that mentions the term to four out of twenty-two makes little difference. I encourage you to take a closer look at the actual sources cited. Every keep voter has been saying all along these sources are reliable without looking at them to see if they actually use the term. This is the kind of article that leads to accusations of systematic bias against Wikipedia. This article is only here because it is the opinion of a small disproportionately active group representing one side. The editors here are more interested in pleasing each other than achieving NPOV. It would never be an entry in Encylopedia Brittanica or any similar professionally edited resource. This is counterproductive squabbling and just goes to prove how 'plastic' this article is itself. Msc008 (talk) 10:14, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It now appears that you are arguing that the article should be moved to a different title -- that's not an argument for deletion. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:00, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What I said is this article would never appear in a real encyclopedia, which is an argument for deletion. The point I'm making about 'plastic medicine man' versus 'plastic/pseudo/false shaman' is that the first is more accurate and has 100 times as many references as any of the others. Plastic medicine man doesn't belong as an article either, but as an entry under shamanism, if at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msc008 (talk • contribs) 13:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See, WP:NOTPAPER for one reason there are over 4,000,000 articles and counting. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:27, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Britannica is no longer paper either. Not hard to see why there are 4 million articles when the bar is set so low. Msc008 (talk) 21:00, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for closing admin - there's been a whole lot of socking going on at this AfD. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Msc008 - Alison ^❤ 10:08, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If certain tribes, for instance, have the notion of "power animal", that is something that for them actually exists in the otherworld. Therefore anyone can access it and work with it. Certain tribes do not have a monopoly over the spirit world. This is the sense in which I said there is no consensus about intellectual property. The very idea is nonsense. In all of history, cultures have borrowed from each other, and if the knowledge in question concerns a supposedly objective reality, then either this claim is false, in which case it doesn't merit protection against "frauds" being itself fraudulent, or else anyone can discover it, describe it and work with it. It's like as if you are arguing that Galileo has rights to the heliocentric view of the universe.Fbunny (talk) 10:12, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Even the article's talk page is not a forum for discussion of the topic, and this deletion discussion is definitely *not* the place to voice your unsourced personal opinions on the subject. Specific ceremonies and ceremonial items are intellectual property [3]. If you want to have a free form discussion on the subject of non-Native appropriation of Indigenous culture, starting a blog might be a good idea. -Uyvsdi (talk) 19:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

Would you like to address any of the points I have made for deletion or are you going to continue making casuistic comments? Fbunny (talk) 09:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SNow Keep and a trout for the pointy nomination on spurious grounds. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:14, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aerial battleship

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

PROD removed by IP without comment. Original concern stands: this is a term that is unknown in English sources; at best, it's a poor translation from the Japanese term for the ships being described; at worst, it's blatantly WP:MADEUP, and either way it's not notable. The correct English term for this type of ship is "hybrid warship", and while there may be an article that can be written on that subject, all this article is is a stub recounting of information from Ise-class battleship. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there are fairly active and expert editors at the WP:ships project. What do they make of this article subject? Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:56, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It's been tagged at the WP:SHIPS AfD page. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the title makes it sound like some sort of airship, and there's really no notability for the term at all. Nothing really worth merging anywhere, either. ₆an⁶sh₆ 05:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - this sounds like a bad translation, and while the topic of hybrid warships might be notable, this specific type isn't by itself. Parsecboy (talk) 19:18, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is not notable and even if it is somewhat, it isn't relevant to English Wikipedia. Plus the way this article is written I have concerns over it being plagiarized. FirstDrop87 (talk) 01:02, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Japanese vessels existed; Gibbs and Cox did propose a battleship-carrier design for the USSR in the 1930s, but this term is incorrect and a either a neologism or poor translation, as suggest above. Kablammo (talk) 01:59, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's a literal translation of a Japanese term, it's not the English language term. (it would probably be better translated as "Aviation Battleship" anyways, just as we have Aviation Cruisers, etc) As for the ship structure itself, some early aircraft carriers were build that way, with flight deck, bridge superstructure and turrets on the different thirds of the ships. -- 70.24.244.161 (talk) 05:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per nomination. At best a paragraph in the Battleship article but not under a literal translation of the Japanese.--Petebutt (talk) 08:40, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:27, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dayhaps Calendar

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

Lacks notability Dchestnykh (talk) 12:27, 10 February 2014 (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/2014 February 10. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 14:30, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability. Current refs do not constitute significant coverage in reliable sources: Jimdo ref is a how-to, frankwatching.com appears to be a blog, Emerce a PR regurgitation, and the minor award nomination not an indicator of notability. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 02:27, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, current references are weak and I wasn't able to find anything better. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:37, 18 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Celebrity_Big_Brother_13#Casey_Batchelor. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Casey Batchelor

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

This is a recently created page of a non notable contestant on Celebrity Big Brother currently on British TV. The refs supplied are weak re-iterations of her appearance on the show, her day job appears to be as a topless model. There has already been a deletion of another contestant on the same show HERE . Szzuk (talk) 22:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:43, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Celebrity Big Brother 13. Insufficient coverage in reliable independent sources for stand-alone article. Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DIT Students' Union

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

Non notable students union. No evidence of in depth coverage in independent reliable sources. Almost all content unreferenced and no independent reliable sources Stuartyeates (talk) 21:15, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I would have thought that the students unions of all the major Irish universities and higher level institutions are notable even though this is sparsely referenced. It should be possible to rescue this one. ww2censor (talk) 15:21, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:43, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent coverage. Advise them to add a history page to http://www.ditsu.ie/ --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: Doesn't seem to be a notable students union. Only reference[4] is not independent of the subject.Iniciativass (talk) 15:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep DIT SU is the first Student Union in Ireland that has a corporate identify. It is a <ref=http://www.ditsu.ie/union/who-we-are/company-info/>registered company</ref> DITSU Ltd Co. Number 109412. DITSU Ltd also owns a subsidiary trading company, DITSU Trading Ltd. The student membership of DITSU is the highest in the country when part-time students are taken into account. It is completely independent from the bureaucracy of DIT and for those reasons should not be closed/deleted and folded into the DIT wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gomaonaigh (talk • contribs) 14:27, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. slakr^\ talk / 14:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Munshi Habib ur Rehman Kapurthalwi

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

No verifiable indications that this person meets the criteria for inclusion. Although claimed as a "chieftain" of Kapurhala State, there is no independent verification that he held any significant post in that government, and his role as an early adherent of the Ahmadiyya movement, while possibly notable within that movement, is not generally notable. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:58, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is the kind of AfD discussion where one is always worried that one is missing something. I'm fairly sure that we quite often delete articles on notable Indian Muslims from a hundred years or so ago - but the difficulty, as in this case, is knowing what to look for to distinguish the notable from the non-notable ones, particularly as there are often a number of ways of transcribing Urdu (and other Indian) names or deciding which parts of a name are important. For instance, in this article, the nominator marked two references as failing verification. In both cases, I am almost entirely convinced that he was wrong to do so - but as, in one case, the subject's name is given as Hadhrat Munshi Habib ar-Rahman and, in the other, as Munshi Muhammad Habibur Rahman, Chieftain, Kapurthala, I can suggest no more than that he was insufficiently ingenious (and probably not to the point where it matters, as in both cases, this was just one name in a list). And, while I would point out that Kapurthalwi doesn't seem to have been an integral part of the subject's name (it just seems to mean from Kapurthala) and neither, probably, is Munshi, removing these before doing a search simply leaves one with far too many false positives (even before one allows for the different ways to spell or even divide up what is left of the name). And, if there are significant reliable sources, chances are that they are in Urdu anyway (and, by the way, I suspect that the description of the subject as "chieftain" is a mistranslation from Urdu - but I've no idea of what the correct translation would be). PWilkinson (talk) 22:16, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:44, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:06, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I point out that, based on this user talk page, this article was created and recreated multiple times in 2010, and speedily deleted several times. (Although, clearly at least one deletion was improper as it was deleted as an unsourced BLP, but clearly, this person has been dead for over 80 years. However, also because this person has been dead for over 80 years, it is unlikely that their notability has changed any since 2010. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:18, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, I agree almost entirely with User:PWilkinson, but that still unfortunately leaves us with an article that we can't verify. I'd rather delete this article with the proviso that it can be recreated if someone with good sources in Urdu (or another language) shows up, than run the risk of allowing a potentially inaccurate or hoaxy article to continue its existence. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:44, 18 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:44, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aurelia Bou Ledesma

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

It seems the only notable thing about this lady is that she is married to a former governor of Puerto Rico. damiens.rf 19:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:44, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article has not established notability about the topic other than that she is the wife of someone famous. Folgertat (talk) 14:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:06, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no notability other than as somebody notable's wife.TheLongTone (talk) 17:43, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:31, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Judith Escalona

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

Promotional autobiography for non-notable woman. damiens.rf 15:47, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:44, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources in the article are not independent, and I was unable to find significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Just passing mentions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:54, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't appear to meet WP:CREATIVE. There are some assertions that she's won awards which might push her towards notability, but it's impossible to know how prestigious or exclusive they are, and there are no citations to back it up in any case. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:46, 18 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete under wp:g11 -- Y not? 16:49, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Efuneral

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

Wikipedia:Notability - This appears to largely be a self promotional and SEO attempt by the article subject Chatterboxer (talk) 15:13, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:44, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Scrambled Eggs (cartoon). Redirects are cheap. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peterkin

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

No indication of notability. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:47, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:11, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:11, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:11, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability, unclear how it would ever reach notability. Bondegezou (talk) 13:58, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, cannot see that there is anything here that cannot be contained in articles about creator.TheLongTone (talk) 17:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Scrambled Eggs (cartoon): we have an article on the cartoon which is more than sufficient. (I just wikilinked it from Peterkin, to make it more obvious.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:14, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

National Association of College & University Entrepreneurs

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

This organisation does not seem to be notable. I can find all-but no coverage in independent sources. A news and news archive search finds three mentions, one is a press release, one is trivial coverage and the other just a mention that the interviewee will be speaking at an event NACUE is hosting. The article is an orphan, linked only from Stat.io, itself almost an orphan and of questionable notability. Thryduulf (talk) 13:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very borderline notability a highly promotional article. If I were using my regular account, Id consider this for G11. 'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 20:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, DDG is right, the notability is pretty thin on the ground here. I haven't been able to find anything independent and substantial about them. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Closed with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 17:12, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Demon Roach Underground

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

This seems a case of WP:NOTINHERITED. While the guy who ran this seems somewhat notable and his group certainly is, I wasn't able to find WP:GNG-type coverage for this particular endeavor of theirs. Someone not using his real name (talk) 06:16, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Someone not using his real name (talk) 07:03, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:28, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Organization of the cDc material probably could be improved but that's not something we should take on here. ~KvnG 18:10, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 00:21, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cirkle

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

Advertising. Not notable. Awards are niche industry ones they all have. Philafrenzy (talk) 01:28, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:38, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion Leader Research (company)

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

Advertising. Notable. Awards are usual sort they all have. Philafrenzy (talk) 01:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:CORP. unreferenced for years and I can only found coverage that confirms existence. LibStar (talk) 13:05, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. LibStar (talk) 10:37, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel Nikko Palau

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

fails WP:ORG. simply being an old hotel is not a claim for notability. the only coverage I could find is in hotel and tourist listings. LibStar (talk) 00:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:03, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:03, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, quite a few google book results, including mentions like "Until the Palau Pacific Resort went up in 1984, Palau's top hotel was the Hotel Nikko Palau" ([5]) and " Palau Continental Hotel, Palau's best tourist hotel." ([6]). The hotel was previously known as 'Palau Continental Hotel'. There is more details that could easily be added, like how it was set up by Japan Airlines and about the workers strike in the 1970s (which came to involve 2 US congressmen). --Soman (talk) 00:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Soman above. 0x0077BE (talk) 18:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:50, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' Sufficiently notable hotel, as shown by the references. 'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 20:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:52, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lynette Spano

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

president of a very unimportant company, with the sources being a combination of mere notices, non-idenpendent sources, and press releases. Accepted at AfC, which by now is not surprising for this sort of article. DGG ( talk ) 04:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious Keep per abundant coverage in reliable independent sources. How old was she when she started the company? Is there a source for her age? The is a lot of coverage going back to the late 80s. So that would make her very young if the age in the article is correct. Also, when did she go from Lynette Spano Vives to lynette Spano? at any rate, this isn't a close call. Definitely notable. Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:16, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - These types of bios are always tricky, since they are usually self-serving and frequently the result of pay-for-play editing. That said the combination of the importance of the company and the fact that this is the founder of a public charity, as covered in multiple sources, tips this one into the Keep camp. Carrite (talk) 19:32, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:52, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Afghanistan, Muscat

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

embassies are not inherently notable. there is no indication this one meets WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 06:38, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:17, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:17, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:18, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing seemingly notable about the building itself or the institution. Embassies are not inherently notable - they must meet WP:GNG and this one doesn't as far as I can see. Stalwart111 12:21, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:26, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of specific absorption rate for devices

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

This appears to be a run-around of a deleted article, List of low-radiation smartphones, which was deleted via AfD. The information is somewhat different, but at the end of the day, it's the same original research for an inevitably incomplete list that can never be an encyclopedia article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:23, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the discussions at the old AfD, the closed CfD, and the currently ongoing RfD. The issues of original research identified in those discussions was satisfactorily dealt with - the information presented here is directly attributable to independent sources (SAR tests submitted to the FCC), we're not applying any synthesized analysis to it (like whether the phone is supported by a free OS, which is not relevant), and hasn't been filtered through any criteria ("low-radiation") that we invented. Ivanvector (talk) 18:16, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm confused by your keep !vote here given that you stated in the prior AFD that "SAR tests...are meaningless for comparing one device to another." Which would seem to attack the very concept of this comparison list, but maybe I'm not understanding what you meant there. postdlf (talk) 19:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was specifically referring to the criteria used to define that list. At the time, the list only included "low-radiation" phones, but that definition isn't defined anywhere (it was invented on that page). Implying that one phone is better or safer than another phone based on SAR measurement is incorrect because the actual radiation absorbed varies wildly depending on the operation of the phone and the operator. The FCC uses SAR tests to certify devices for sale but doesn't do any further analysis; the "low-radiation" list was synthesizing it. There was also wording that suggested a skewed POV favouring a certain Android OS, which I objected to. See what that list looked like. I think we've cleaned all of that up. We did start to talk about what the proper name of this list should be, but the editor who has done most of the work has never participated in any of these discussions despite being invited, so the talk faded out without consensus to do anything. As far as process, the list originated on the SAR page and was moved out, then was built out with synthesized info, then was deleted, so it was logical to recreate the original list within the SAR article. The problems were addressed early when the list was recreated and what we have now is substantially improved over the list that was deleted. Ivanvector (talk) 21:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'm personally struggling with seeing how this list is substantially different than the previous one. This literally looks like what I'd expect the deleted list to look like had we not deleted it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, the format of this list is basically the same as the deleted one (going by memory). The difference is that this list is neutral and balanced; the old one wasn't, by virtue of only including phones from a certain OS and that met an invented criteria. Ivanvector (talk) 04:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Indeed, the table itself is almost identical, but most of the prose has been deleted. So now it's a table assembled with FCC data and supplemented with mobile device specs. If a reputable secondary source discusses or explains this data for laypeople, then that is something that can be summarized and cited in Mobile phone radiation and health. What you have is a start at something of potential interest and importance to consumers, but it is too technical and lacks any explication, let alone an executive summary. The trouble is, Wikipedia is not the place for publishing this data, and you're just straitjacketing yourself by trying to sanitize it to meet inclusion criteria. Those criteria notwithstanding, Wikipedia is not even the most effective venue for doing what you're trying to do. If you had evidence that a meteor was going to make a 500-megaton impact on Earth, would you publish to Wikipedia? —Ringbang (talk) 02:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:26, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wikipedia doesn't just publish tables of raw data. Their needs to be a source explaining the importance/notability of this data in order for it to have its own article.AioftheStorm (talk) 15:47, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The relevance is explained at Specific absorption rate which this list grew too large for. I had previously tried to summarize in the lede on this page. Also, I moved your comment below the relists for procedural clarity; please move it back if you object. Ivanvector (talk) 17:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are sources describing the radiation from X-ray machines as being significant, but a table of comparison of different X-ray machine radiation levels would still not be notable enough for its own article. That is because, per WP:CSC, every entry in a list has to be notable enough for its own article, and the specific absorption rates of devices are not notable enough for their own articles, thus a list of specific absorption rates does not adhere to notability guidelines.AioftheStorm (talk) 22:55, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is clear that this should be kept in some form. Whether or not that's at its current title or merged/renamed into a new Earthquakes in Sweden article is not an issue for AfD. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Skåne County earthquake

AfDs for this article:

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

this earthquake had no deaths and was hardly reported outside of Sweden. No long term coverage either. Looking at Earthquakes in 2008, all the earthquakes on this list are above 5.0 with the exception of one which had a fatality. There is consensus that 5.0 is the usual minimum for a mention in WP unless there are deaths. LibStar (talk) 10:12, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Earthquakes_in_2009 contains no earthquakes less than 5.0. LibStar (talk) 23:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:34, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:34, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:34, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The earthquake had no effect except that people felt a shaking. No fatalities and not even material damages reported. And as LibStar says; it falls below the standard threshold of 5.0 on Richers scale for inclusion in Wikipedia articles. Maybe it might be mentioned briefly in some geology articles related to Sweden/Skåne, but I don't think we need a formal merger. Iselilja (talk) 15:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In the context of an earthquake in Sweden which is extremely. Makes it notable. Even if it "falls below the threshold of 5.0 in the Richers scale". Had the earthquake happened in Japan I would have agreed. But not this time.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

you've inventing your own criterion for notability. It still doesn't meet WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 14:46, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Im not inventing anything. I am telling my personal opinion on an AfD. And frankly you comment on anyones rationale who isnt in line with yours that they "are wrong" and you should let an AfD run its course as your comments make no impact on the final result anyway. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 14:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In any AfD, when arguing keep you should relate to notability criterion or established consensus, otherwise it's a WP:ILIKEIT or WP:ITSNOTABLE !vote. LibStar (talk) 14:50, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It has reasonably solid sources, and is an earthquake of a magnitude unusual for the region (a claim that's also sourced), which seems enough for at least a short verifiable article. Which earthquakes merit an article is a tricky question, but imo a rigid Richter-scale threshold for earthquakes doesn't make much sense, since some 4.x earthquakes are unusual and have sources discussing them, while some 5.x earthquakes aren't and don't. --Delirium (talk) 02:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Although, looking at the discussion of the previous nomination, I do like one of the proposed solutions there: create an Earthquakes in Sweden article and merge this. --Delirium (talk) 02:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - That would be a good solution. But lets wait and see how this AfD discussion end. --BabbaQ (talk) 18:07, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:51, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Rename by Delirium's reasoning. It's also better structurally. Now is the time to decide on the fate of this article. If it gets deleted, it will be harder to do this. - Sidelight 12 ^Talk 03:04, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge/Rename. This earthquake was indeed exceptional by Swedish standards (I was personally one of those who got scared as hell by it) and thus merits mentioning, at least as part of a bigger article. /FredrikT (talk) 14:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IKNOWIT is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 21:44, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- meets WP:GNG and WikiProject Earthquakes notability guidelines (i.e., an unusual event in an area of low seismic activity, and covered in the GEUS scientific journal). If an Earthquakes in Sweden article is created, it would be appropriate for this text to merged and the article name redirected to there. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Kamal-ol-molk. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The spring hall of Golestan Palace

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

Notability of this painting is not established. Only one source is cited that only lists the painting, bout without significant coverage. Google search returns no hits ([7]). Vanjagenije (talk) 23:30, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

REDIRECT to Kamal-ol-molk. no evidence of independent notability. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:18, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui 雲‍水 14:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:49, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ajit Ravi

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

Delete, I'm not confident this would pass a csd but this gentleman does not pass WP:ACTOR or the WP:GNG in the sources available. It's possible there be sources in his vernacular. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. The image used in article is currently in CAT:CSD as copyvio. jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 16:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Pick of Destiny. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Classico

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

This song does not appear to be notable, given that notability is not inherited from appearing on a well-known album (in this case The Pick of Destiny). Given the paucity of reliable sources in the article, and the fact that I couldn't find very many through Google, I propose converting this article into a redirect, though I may change my mind if some such sources can be found. Jinkinson talk to me 19:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Pick of Destiny. Adabow (talk) 04:25, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 00:23, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cold-fX

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

Article was recently tagged for notability. Since it has been around a while and has sources, I am taking it into AfD to decide the issue. If there is a quick consensus in favor of ~~delete~~, oops, keep, I will withdraw the nomination and close early, but better than leaving a notability tag on the article indefinitely. I lean slightly to delete, but I won't press the issue if the consensus goes the other way. Safiel (talk) 21:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the editors/contributors of the page cannot transcribe words and passages from the cited source, this page is no longer credible and should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.46.223.130 (talk) 22:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The larger issue is that we appear to have the manufacturer aggressively editing Wikipedia in an effort to promote this stuff per [8] I support either keep or merge to American ginseng Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:07, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per the relevant notability guideline, WP:PRODUCT, particularly the line "Avoid creating multiple stubs about each individual product ... especially if there is no realistic hope of expansion." Moreover, since American ginseng exists, MOS:PHARM's (WP:Supplements lacks a MOS) section on layout indicates that, assuming this product is even notable enough for mention here, this simply be added to a subsection on a list of brands in that article. Except in very unusual circumstances, drug articles should always use the generic name for a substance and not its brand name (examples of unusual circumstances include:a sufficiently large history section to merits a separate summary-style article, no generic name for a brand with sufficient notability (notoriety), or the only available generic name for a very notable drug is stupidly long, like Dextroamphetamine Sulfate, Dextroamphetamine Saccharate, Amphetamine Sulfate and Amphetamine Aspartate. Among these examples, hydroxycut is probably the most comparable article for notability comparison, as its a dietary supplement with notoriety.Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 00:59, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and watch. The article has a rough average of 100 clicks a day, people looking for information on this. If there is evidence from reliable secondary sources as to its efficacy, (as in this case) then people should be able to find this information in an encyclopedia. We would be doing the company editors trying to use Wikipedia as a soapbox a great favour by deleting the article as it is Ochiwar (talk) 05:46, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:58, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:59, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:23, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:46, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Keep as the product is notable, the COI editing should be dealt with either page protection or aggressive monitoring. Mrfrobinson (talk) 20:30, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Merging with American ginseng does not make sense to me since most people looking for this article would not know to look under ginseng. There have been no edits since it came off protection in late December so there is no current issue with COI edits. If anything, the article is currently unbalanced to the negative side. The product has had widespread distribution and media coverage in Canada and seems notable to me, whether it works or not. Meters (talk) 21:41, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:GNG. Source examples:

"Fighting the Common Cold". ABC News. 2005-10-25.
Does Cold-FX work instantly as claimed? - Canada - CBC News
Paladin Labs' Afexa Sciences Hostile Takeover Bid Worth $56.7 Million
Health Canada approves Cold-fX's medical claims | CTV News
Battle brews to take over Cold-FX maker Afexa - The Globe and Mail
UBC professors question effectiveness of Cold-fX
Q&A: The Doctor Who Created Cold-FX | Health Media Today
Cold-FX maker has failed to deliver on promises: Paladin | Financial Post
Charlie Gillis (2007-03-26). "COLD-fX catches the sniffles again". Macleans Magazine.

– Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:GNG. See reference improvements and additional sources added to article (under "Further reading") by Northamerica1000 - tucoxn\^talk 05:40, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Old College, University of Notre Dame

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

lack of notability; lack of independent sources; not encyclopaedic article; marketing material Crusader2011 (talk) 19:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed up the nomination; I'd say ~~redirect~~ to List of residence halls at the University of Notre Dame (as I did with several others a while back) - I can't find any independent sources either. The possible notability seems to hinge on the fact that it's the oldest building at Notre Dame (which is why I didn't redirect it with the others), but now that I do a search for it I don't think it's adequate. Ansh6 6 6 20:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to Keep and improve - the National Register of Historic Places is good enough, but the article really needs some WP:RSes. ₆an⁶sh₆ 22:08, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (Template:R to list entry) seems to be the most sensible thing. —Ringbang (talk) 00:48, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:00, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:00, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:00, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:27, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:46, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a landmark of one of the most important uninversities in the US. It was the first building built and was built in 1842. Having almost 200 years, it is an historical building and also a seminary, so an institution by its own and not only part of the UNivesrity of Notre DameEccekevin (talk) 18:31, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As the first and oldest building, I expect there exists additional documentation off-line about this. It seems individually notable. It was not only a dormitory, it was the original building of the university, with other functions. Now it is a seminary and I don't think that is the same as a "dormitory". I do think this should continue to be linked separately from the navigation template of significant Notre Dame buildings, and not kludged into a list of the dorms only. --do ncr am 20:35, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - historically significant building and, as also a seminary, it has a role separate from the University. Sure it needs expansion and better sourcing but that, rather than deletion, is the way to go. The Whispering Wind (talk) 04:07, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ I have found the documentation from 1973 that proves that Old College, together with many other building of Notre Dame, is on the National Register of Historic Places. https://secure.in.gov/apps/dnr/shaard/r/1c9d1/N/University_of_Notre_Dame_Campus_Main_and_South_Quadrangles_St._Joseph_CO_Nom.pdf It is building #1 on the list. This proves its significance on a national level. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eccekevin (talk • contribs) 22:28, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— Duplicate !vote: Eccekevin (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.

And so I struck it. ₆an⁶sh₆ 22:08, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 16:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of residence halls at the University of Notre Dame

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

lack of notability, lack of independent sources and verifiability, content not suitable for an encyclopaedia Crusader2011 (talk) 19:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Crusader2011 (talk) 19:47, 22 January 2014 (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/2014 January 22. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Offline 22:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 23:27, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided. Not certain if this is sufficiently notable for a standalone article. I suppose two lines could be added to a new subsection of University of Notre Dame#Campus: "All first-year students are not only guaranteed on-campus housing, but are required to reside on-campus for at least one semester. There are currently 29 residence halls: 15 men-only, 14 women-only." That could then link to this list, if it's kept. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:27, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, though consider move/rename to List of University of Notre Dame buildings (currently a redlink), more in parallel with other members of Category:Lists of university and college buildings in the United States. Some articles about separate possibly notable residence halls have been redirected to this list, losing material and references. See this Sorin Hall article version, just before being redirected on December 13, which may possibly support the notability of that hall on its own. (There was an AFD tag but it shows only a redlink, i don't see an AFD discussion). In Notre Dame University#Campus section of the university article, there's a photo captioned "Historic Washington Hall on the Main Quadrangle, popularly termed the God Quad", and there's a New Buildings subsection. I am sure that there are a number of individually notable NDU buildings, and having a list-article covering them all together instead of separate articles is a fine way to go. --do ncr am 20:10, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. There exists navigation template {{University of Notre Dame}} which links to a number of university structures having articles. A list-article of them all, with a section on residence halls, would be fine. See guideline wp:CLT about how category, list, and navigation templates are complementary. --do ncr am 20:19, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - User:Eccekevin reverted several redirects from non-notable individual residence halls and removed the AfD tag. I've reverted everything back and given a warning. ₆an⁶sh₆ 01:55, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR. This is a directory not an encyclopedia article.--Charles (talk) 19:44, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is generally a justified breakotu page at a famous university of considerable size, and that's true here also. Most of the individual ones will not be notable, but this is the way to cover them. 'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 20:18, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per doncram and DGG. Side note: I redirected several individual pages (including the one above that doncram points out) because of a lack of independent sources; an IP editor put up an AfD template on them without any rationale anywhere first. ₆an⁶sh₆ 21:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pepper Curtis

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

Not referenced, not notable. She had 5 credits as extras on films (3 uncredited) and then 3 credits as a stunt woman (2 uncredited). No reliable sources about her. LADY LOTUS • TALK 16:31, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Fails WP:NACTOR. IMDb lists only a couple credits for her, and many of them are uncredited. I can only assume that someone created this as a memorial. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fairly clearly does not meet WP:ENT. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG and the SNG low bar for actors. Appears to be a small memorial, my condolences to her family and friends. Carrite (talk) 19:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Will recreate as the original redirect, and protect. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:54, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

George Alan

AfDs for this article:

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

Article was questioned for notability 4 years ago and I still fail to see his notability to have his own Wikipedia page. He's a extra/character actor. Notable how? LADY LOTUS • TALK 16:44, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:50, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:50, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I concur with the view expressed by Niteshift36 in the previous AFD 'Minor roles in notable shows don't make you notable, especially when they are one time appearances. Nor does appearing in 8 episodes out of 60 as "bartender". Fails WP:ENT' Finnegas (talk) 12:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:44, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not expressing an opinion on whether this should be deleted as I haven't looked into it, but I created this page as a redirect to George Allan. If it is deleted, I'd like it to become a redirect to Geroge Allan, although it might need some protection, as this is how it was possible for the creator to avoid new page patrol. Boleyn (talk) 10:26, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fairly clearly doesn't meet WP:ENT, even with recent choice parts like "Waiter", "Gas Man" and "Party Guest". Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:56, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Senyo Amoaku

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

Not notable. No reliable sources about him. He's mainly an extra or character actor. Shouldn't have his own Wiki page LADY LOTUS • TALK 16:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources and absence of major career accomplishments to merit inclusion per guidelines. Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:57, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Haskell V. Anderson III

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

Unreferenced because there are no reliable sources about him. He meets WP:BARE by having appeared in movies. Doesn't deserve his own Wiki page. LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep He meets WP:NACTOR through various roles in film and tv (from Brotherhood of Death and Kickboxer (film) to the play Julia which was widely reviewed in 2010-11). There's not much detailed content online, but his career goes back to the late 1970s, during which he's worked widely on film, TV, and stage, as well as being involved with the L.A. Rebellion movement, working for Catholic organisation CIMA, winning an NAACP acting award (not notable in itself but all part of the picture), so there may well be content on him offline. I removed some promotional language but it could do with further editing. As to whether he "deserves" an article, this is about applying policies not Lady Lotus's moral judgment. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:37, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When I say he doesn't "deserve", I meant he doesn't really have any reason to have his own wikipedia page per notability. And as per WP:NACTORS it states they should have "significant roles in multiple notable films" I would beg to differ. Most of his roles are College Interviewer, Male Juror, Man #3, Junkie, Courtroom #7 Clerk, Well Dressed Client, Man, or Barber shop pimp to name a few. He played a minor role in Kickboxer (film), I don't know if I would consider that notable. He's more of an extra/character actor at best. LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:19, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a reasonably recognizable character actor, with sufficient parts to pass NACTOR. Bearian (talk) 18:10, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:59, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lipstick Bail Bonds

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Lipstick Bail Bonds

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

advertisment, not neutral, vandalism 62.131.148.154 (talk) 12:29, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - moved from WT:AFD. ₆an⁶sh₆ 18:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Famous. covered by major media. the article could use some work. Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:23, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Sure doesn't seem to meet GNG. APerson (talk!) 04:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only significant content is a BLP violation. DGG ( talk ) 02:27, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus seems to be that even if he meets the subject-specific notability guideline in a technical sense, Parkinson doesn't meet the WP:GNG. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Parkinson (footballer born 1945)

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

Unsourced stub that Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Jeffrd10 (talk) 17:53, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. For the sake of factual accuracy, the article is sourced (albeit only one source) and passes WP:NFOOTY as the subject made one appearance in the Football League. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out the reference I thought it was just a note.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 18:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:43, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - his sole FL appearance was as an amateur, confirmed by this. @Mattythewhite: do you have the Hugman book? What information is there about him? If this is it then I might be inclined to say he is non-notable... Giant Snowman 18:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject passes WP:NFOOTBALL by virtue of his Football League appearance, though it'd do no harm for the article to state explicitly in the prose that he played in that league. Article needs improving, not deleting. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep surely Leyton Orient was fully professional in 1967. Nfitz (talk) 03:43, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Technical WP:NFOOTY pass at best, but WP:GNG always overrides this. Unclear how an article on a player who made one potentially FPL appearance could be expanded to meet GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – GNG trumps NFOOTBALL, GNG doesn't guarantee articles should be kept. There seems to be nothing to add to the article, which lacks enough gravitas to have an article. C 679 13:14, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:30, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The relationship between the GNG and the sport specific guides has never been certain. l I think it's logical to see them as alternatives, if for no other reason that it greatly reduces the need for detailed analysis of the great number of articles. I agree the result can seem absurd to someone like me not particularly interested in the sport, but that's irrelevant--its still better not to need the discussions. I fail to see why gravitas is a requirement for a WP article. 'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 20:24, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:GNG, even though perhaps barely satisfying WP:NFOOTY. No inherent notability for kicking a ball in 1 professional game. Edison (talk) 03:21, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Having merely shown up at a professional level is no longer enough. Consensus has changed. Subject must have been covered substantially or have achieved some significant accomplishment to merit inclusion. No objection to redirecting to an article on the team he made the roster on or some type of list article if one exists. Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:27, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While technically passing WP:NSPORT, the article fails WP:GNG clearly enough for it fall under the part of WP:NSPORT that says that not all article that pass its must be kept. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:59, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moi Navarro

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

Article appears to be written with promotional intent either by the subject, PR team, or fan. Article has unsubstantiated claims along with unverifiable or 1st party sources such as the artist's Facebook page. Cmcnamee (talk) 18:16, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to fail WP:MUSICBIO or WP:BAND (I can't tell if the subject is an individual or a group, but both links point to the same criteria). I found two interesting links: this write-up may not be sufficiently independent of the subject, and it isn't a reliable source, however if he has performed national anthems at a professional-level hockey game, he may meet GNG. The newreleasetuesday database entry, however it appears very similar to the content of the article, some is a verbatim match. It states that it was lasted edited by NRTeamAdmin, but not that the staff member wrote it. Is the Malibu Music Award notable? If so, http://www.malibumusicawards.com/2010/2010grandprize.php. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:29, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:28, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 00:27, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ellen Brown

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not appear to be noteworthy enough for an article. A previous version was deleted via AfD, but the new version does not appear to solve the problems. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:13, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see significant coverage of her in reliable sources. What does exist seems to be local. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:31, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a well-written and well-sourced article with a wide-ranging variety of references. I specifically noted a [Rose Bird] commendation in a 1979 California judicial ruling, acceptance of an article by the New York Times in 2013, and the 2011 in-depth article in Vermont Woman. I found that Brown has a bio on, and regularly contributes to, Huffington Post, [9]. Unscintillating (talk) 02:11, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As author of this article, I am aware that previous article, written by different author, was deleted. I am willing to make any changes explicitly suggested in this discussion. I believe subject has adequate notoriety and exposure to qualify as noteworthy. Wisconsota (talk) 18:41, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Try to find articles in reliable sources that discuss this person, rather than articles written by this person. Publishing an article in The New York Times does not make one notable. When The New York Times writes an article about you, that makes you notable. Book reviews of her work would also make her notable. Blogs and other other self-published sites don't count. Primary sources also don't count toward establishing notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:04, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As per the nutshell of WP:N, notable topics are "those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time..." There are many ways to establish wp:notability. So when the editors of the New York Times select an author to publish, they are giving direct attention to that author. In my !vote I specified "acceptance" of the article as the element of wp:notability. The publication of the article generates further wp:notability when readers look at the name of the author. Unscintillating (talk) 04:32, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry, that's not how it works. Primary sources do not grant notability. See WP:42 for a quick and easy version. Sources must be independent. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:42 seriously misrepresents our notability guidelines and has been subject of controversy for some time. If you look at its talk page you will discover that even its supporters admit that it should never be cited at AfD in any context. I suggest that you refer directly to WP:N. My reading of it is that GNG does not work in reverse and that a topic is not presumed to be non-notable only because it fails GNG. James500 (talk) 16:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Every single guideline, policy, and essay on Wikipedia has people who call it "controversial" and decry its use in deletion discussions – even WP:N, which some people have claimed is not a valid deletion rationale. Your objection is noted, however. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in Wikipedia:Don't cite WP42 at AfD. Unscintillating (talk) 01:31, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No basis for the original reasoning - I see significant coverage through references like Fox Business. Seems to pass basic WP:BIO SayItRight1 (talk) 19:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you show where the coverage of Brown is in that link? It appears she's only an in-studio panelist for a segment, and it's not actually about her. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:00, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes GNG. -- GreenC 16:18, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Green Cardamom, where are the sources about her? Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:08, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find this a useful and important article. If there are any breaches of source protocol, please correct them, but do not delete the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guydauncey (talk • contribs) 21:17, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:00, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Skinny Alley

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

Concerns about the notability of this band. ‑Scottywong | prattle _ 19:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources are either from a social networking site (e.g. Myspace) or extremely weak. Admiral Caius (talk) 21:27, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Fails WP:MUSICBIO. STATic message me! 04:55, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I suspect there is some notability here: you don't get signed to EMI for no reason. Still, I've been able to find nearly nothing to back up my suspicion that this is a potentially notable band disguised by a poor article. The best I could find is the statement "...they enjoy cult status" in this article. I'd be happy to change my vote if anyone finds more. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:02, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:00, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Noel V. Lateef

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

Non-notable CEO. The only sources I can find on this person are blurbs from associated organisations, which lack independence. He has published widely but google scholar reports nothing with many citations and worldcat reports no book held by more than a 1000 libraries worldwide. It's possible that there are non-English sources I'm failing to find. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:55, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nominator's case seems sound. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:10, 31 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:23, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:36, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:05, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pejibaye Town, Pejibaye District, Jiménez

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

No sources, could not verify using Google maps. Tal Brenev (talk) 22:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting... it can also be found on the map under it's other names Pejivalle, Pejiballe, Pejivalle etc. User:cjgace(talk)22:23, 30 January 2014(UTC)

I looked it up on google maps under "Pejivalle, Pejiballe, Pejivalle" and still could not find anything. Tal Brenev (talk) 22:26, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Try... https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Pejibaye,+Cartago,+Costa+Rica&hl=en&sll=9.816667,-83.7&sspn=0.036874,0.055189&oq=Pejibaye+&hnear=Pejibaye,+Cartago,+Costa+Rica&t=m&z=14 Sorry. It's my first wiki article and I'm a peace corps volunteer here trying to fulfill our goals of getting my town on the map so to speak. I'll be adding more content and links today and over the next few days. Thanks for your help. User:cjgace(talk)22:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just added a link to the coordinates for the town of Pejibaye at the top of the wiki article. It's listed as "Pejivalle" not "Pejibaye" on Google maps, but both spellings can be used in the search feature to show the same town of Pejibaye in Cartago, Costa Rica. The page is almost complete, so please remove the deletion notice as we have sources and we have added the coordinates. Thanks! User:cjgace(talk) 03:52, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please get the deletion notice removed? User:cjgace(talk) 11:10, 9 February 2014

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:18, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems to be a verified inhabited location and those are usually considered notable. Stalwart111 12:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:05, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ishtiaq Ali

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

A non notable person with doubtful claims of being an actor, writer, and director of 30 shows and films. A simple Google search does not even result anything near to what is claimed. These claims as obvious from the history of the article are because of a copy paste from the article Faisal Rehman and later those contents were reduced and dob and some other info were changed. Besides if we are to believe what is written in the article the subject born in 1992 started his career at the age of 10 and in 13 years of his career at such a young age has done 30 shows and films as an actor, director and screen writer, an incredible job. But what is astonishing is that this deed doesn't find a mention in any sources let alone the reliable ones. SMS ^Talk 05:05, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. SMS ^Talk 05:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SMS ^Talk 05:08, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:56, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not finding anything worth noting about his actor. Seems like a clear fail of WP:NACTOR. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:51, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:08, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kamley

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

No evidence of notability Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. Can be recreated if it becomes so in future. Bondegezou (talk) 14:02, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

College of Economics, Entrepreneurship and Management "Zrinski"

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

No references, notability not established for over a year. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 20:39, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Timbouctou (talk) 14:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Secondary and tertiary educational institutions are held to be notable by long-standing precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:57, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I wouldn't say so, per WP:NSCHOOL and WP:ORGSIG. This one fails both primary criteria for organisations and WP:GNG. Timbouctou (talk) 17:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, this is the case. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. It's a perennial debate. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All tertiary institutions with real existence are in fact considered notable for purposes of WP. This has been soundly established for at least 5 or 6 years now. What we do is the guidelines--a common outcome without any deviations at all is much sounder than almost all written guidelines, which generally have numerous instances where they;re ignored. The GNG does not apply to everything, . I do understand, however, that this particular article is about as minimal as I;ve ever seen, and it would be very desirable to have some confirmation of what is on their website. 'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 21:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can see at their Croatian-language website, this is actually a group of four private-run institutions - a secondary school for economics and management, a tertiary institution offering undergraduate and graduate business degrees and two other schools which are open to public which teach vocational training and assorted short courses. They call themselves "Zrinski education group" and are not affiliated with any university. They probably do exist but Googling them only yields a few articles about their activities in business-specialised press, which are most likely paid advertisements. This is barely notable even by local standards and I don't see any potential for expansion here. The same could be said for Professional Business School of Higher Education LIBERTAS, College of AGORA and International Graduate Business School Zagreb (all created by the same user who created Zrinski), and Business School PAR (article created by their own students). If Wikipedia wants to keep these, fine - but I don't see them ever evolving beyond stubs containing what are essentially directory listings. Timbouctou (talk) 05:28, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:11, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 17:42, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:00, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate_Disney

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not seem to be notable. No independent 3rd-party references, tagged for nearly 6 years. --Eepeex (talk) 10:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:56, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Could not find grounds for notability. Prior AfD arguments alluded to coverage on other sites (which themselves are of dubious reliability), but failed to list verifiable citations, and the coverage could have been incidental. Reviewers in that AfD argued based on inherited notability ("supported by a notable film critic") and the mere existence of coverage ("there is indeed third-party coverage") rather than Wikipedia's modern requirements for significant coverage from reliable sources in the general notability guidelines (WP:GNG) and notable website guidelines (WP:WEBSITE). Book references I found to "ultimatedisney.com" were all single-line, incidental mentions of where information was found, not coverage about the site itself. The site's current name, DVDizzy, did not turn up in any reliable sources that I checked. ––Agyle (talk) 20:41, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Apparently the website ultimatedisney.com no longer exists, and the domain name simply redirects to a different general video review site, DVDLizzy.com. Notability and further article improvements will have to be based on solely on historical accounts. ––Agyle (talk) 20:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft. There's no reason to hide this content from view, as it doesn't contain COPYVIO nor BLP stuff, but it's true that there's little in it that can be reliably sourced. Diego (talk) 12:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:44, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Lodhi. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:01, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lodh

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

The caste this article is referring to is Lodhi, whose article is already there in Wikipedia. Also, the official name of the caste is Lodhi (as per OBC list of various states). So there is no point in keeping this article. Owsert (talk) 05:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Seems obvious to me: there are some sources & info in Lodh that could easily be merged in Lodhi. The term do appear to be synonyms, as also does Lodha (eg: here). I'm not sure which way it should be merged, though. Official spellings do not count for a lot, as especially not in India where officialdom often does not agree on its own transliterations - it is WP:COMMONNAME that applies here. - Sitush (talk) 11:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:43, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Lee (fighter)

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

Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NMMA. LiberatorLX (talk) 08:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. LiberatorLX (talk) 09:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Should not have been created but he is currently competing in the top tier even though the first attempt was a loss. Maybe best to let this one lie for a bit.Peter Rehse (talk) 18:16, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article was clearly created WP:TOOSOON. He had his first top tier fight (a loss) yesterday and it will be awhile before he gets three top tier fights--and he may never get them (see WP:CRYSTALBALL). No objection to the article being userfied in someone's sandbox and recreated when he meets WP:NMMA. Papaursa (talk) 04:52, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet WP:NMMA. That he might meet it someday is WP:CRYSTALBALL. No objection to userfying the article until he does meet NMMA.Mdtemp (talk) 16:14, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would be in full support of re-creating or restoring this article if this fighter continues at top-tier and eventually meets WP:NMMA but until then we shouldn't keep it on the grounds he may meet the guideline later on. Mkdw ^talk 06:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Haran

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

Contested PROD on the grounds that he might meet GNG as has played in the top league in his country. Player has not played in WP:FPL or senior international football so fails WP:NFOOTY. Has also only played 37 league apearances in his career over seven years so almost certainly fails WP:GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFOOTBALL failure. Number 5 7 18:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. JMHamo (talk) 15:58, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage in reliable sources, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:27, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with views expressed above. Finnegas (talk) 11:22, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Colm McGonigle

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

Contested PROD on the grounds that he might meet GNG as has played in the top league in his country and unreferenced note that he was a clubs top scorer. Player has not played in WP:FPL or senior international football so fails WP:NFOOTY. Has also only made an unknown number of league apearances in his career over seven years so currently fails WP:GNG. Not sure how being a club top scorer, as opposed to the top scorer in a league (and for one season only with 7 goals!) makes someone pass GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:11, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFOOTBALL failure. Number 5 7 18:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage in reliable sources, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:27, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:17, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

World Class Solutions

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

Notability not established for almost 6 years. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 14:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:08, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:08, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not a notable company. Seems like a puff piece to me. Snappy (talk) 18:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No obvious evidence of significant coverage from a Google search. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Social market economy. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:03, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rhine capitalism

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

This article is an unnecessary WP:CFORK of social market economy (SME), which is also about the German model and presents a more appropriate perspective by resorting to a much broader array of sources. Most authors use "Rhine capitalism" with the same meaning of the German (SME) model. Most of the fork page nominated in this AfD is based on the wp:primary sources/books of one author (Michel Albert), who also apparently coined the term. He gets a passing mention in a footnote of a book by two other authors (Halls and Soskice), but only to say that they develop their of comparison between the US and Germany; they don't use the term "Rhine capitalism" except when they mention Albert's book [10]. Minor differences in use of "Rhine capitalism" to denote something similar but perhaps not quite the same as SME can be mentioned in the SME article. Someone not using his real name (talk) 16:16, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Someone not using his real name (talk) 16:17, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; 70% fork and 30% synthesis. bobrayner (talk) 16:36, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It might make some sense to write an article about the book in which Albert proposed his theory, titled Capitalism vs. Capitalism or Capitalism against Capitalism (there seem to be two translations of its French title by different publishers: [11] [12]). Secondary sources actually discussing the theses of the book (as opposed to using a term coined there with a slightly different meaning) focus mostly on other aspects of the book e.g. the dispute with Fukuyama [13] or something to do with insurance models [14], so I don't see much material that could be salvaged from this wiki page for an article about the book. Someone not using his real name (talk) 17:11, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- We have a book-type article about a similar but broader (in scope) book, Halls and Soskice (eds.) Varieties of Capitalism, although that page presently seems to fail WP:NBOOK; there is one omnibus review of several such books here, but it doesn't unfortunately cover Albert's book except by mention it in passing. Someone not using his real name (talk) 18:05, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Social market economy and/or German model While Albert's characterisation of Rhenish capitalism does seem to have some points of difference from others' characterisations of the social market economy or the German model, these do not seem enough to justify a separate article, particularly when in practice it is mostly referenced to Albert's work. But there is still enough to make this worth at least a mention elsewhere. PWilkinson (talk) 19:09, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Social market economy Albert's characterization of Rhine capitalism should be included in a subsection of the social market economy due to the heavy overlap, but as PWilkinson says, there is not enough sources to justify a separate article. "Rhine capitalism" appears to be used as a synonym for the social market economy. -Battlecry 06:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:06, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Antix (rapper)

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

Requested by Gav Duffy of Raised by Wolves PR on behalf of the article subject (OTRS Ticket #2014020110004446) Geoff ^{Who, me?} 18:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The refs to date, which look to be a full-ish account of the subject's notability, do not look to be reliable by Wikipedia standards. And a subject of even marginal notability should always have a wish to be excluded here respected, IMO, given the openess of the project. 78.19.106.134 (talk) 19:23, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The refs are not reliable by Wikipedia standards. Also most of them are dead or broken. The photo is incorrect. Much of the information is about someone else. It is harmful to the actual subjects career. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavduff007 (talk • contribs) 21:14, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:24, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The refs are not reliable by Wikipedia standards, this should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavduff007 (talk • contribs) 10:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC) Why hasn't this been removed yet? It clearly should be and no-one has argued otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavduff007 (talk • contribs) 12:51, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:12, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:06, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dubai Investment Park

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

Delete. Obvious promo. The Arabic is not tagged as {{lang-ae}} and all the references are to the company and business etc. Obviously WP:PROMO and WP:NCORP not notable business. Si Trew (talk) 19:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I should declare an interest, I didn't know it, but Google Search the first reference is to HSBC.ae. and my wife works for HSBC. I didn't know that it was HSBC who owned it, but I like to come here with clean hands: it has nothing to do with my wife's work (it is a thousand or so miles away), she is on the poor "retail" side, not the posh "investment" side. Si Trew (talk) 19:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:18, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:17, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kelle Roos

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

Contested PROD; player fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage - all I can see is WP:ROUTINE transfer news and sports joutnalism. Also fails WP:NFOOTBALL as he has not played in a fully-professional league. The fact he is contracted to one is not enough - he needs actual game time - and saying he will play/be notable in the future violates WP:CRYSTAL. Giant Snowman 14:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes GNG. Player is notable - has received significant coverage (for example, here) in reliable sources. Tiller54 (talk) 22:36, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as discussed above. The link noted as "significant coverage" in the previous comment is no more than routine transfer speculation. A case of WP:TOOSOON, article can be recreated if / when he actually plays. Fenix down (talk) 10:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes GNG as noted by Tiller54. Also there are many sources in the article itself that demonstrate this, that are non-routine. Such as [15]. Nfitz (talk) 01:36, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Has not played first team football yet, so fails WP:NFOOTY and has not received significant media coverage, so fails WP:GNG JMHamo (talk) 01:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. He has not played in fully pro league, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT, and the coverage he has received is almost exclusively transfer news, which does not amount to significant coverage. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, one substantial piece of coverage has been provided, but multiple sources are required to meet the WP:GNG. All this will become moot if he ever makes an on-field appearance with Derby County, of course. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Monty ₈₄₅ 20:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—This player has received coverage in multiple independent sources—including BBC Sports—in different countries and different languages. I’m not an expert on notability, but that seems to rise to the level of substantial coverage in secondary sources. Certain Wikipedia readers might very well want to know about this person. --Vindeniträden (talk) 23:25, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, coverage tends to be around transfer news/gossip rather than career exploits. Nothing significant to pass WP:GNG. --Jimbo^[online] 11:16, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete There are sources, so that much is on the books. The problem is that the sources don't establish notability for the subject. Sourcing is only part of the equation. The other part is getting the sources to say that the subject meets WP:N which in this case is WP:NFOOTBALL. As far as I can tell he comes up short there. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:06, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hala Abdel Rahman

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

Subject's only competitions were at the youth level. Fails notability guidelines. Autobiography. Prod declined without explanation by a sock or associate of the article creator. Safiel (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Some of the sources cited are trivial mentions and the others seem unlikely to meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources. This person seems not to meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria either generally or for WP:ATHLETE. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:04, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment could an arabic-speaking editor please get the subject's name in arabic? that'll make it much easier to find sources, if they exist. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Apparent WP:AUTO and junior events aren't enough to show notability.204.126.132.231 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:12, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR.) Regarding the potential for a merge, a merge discussion can continue on a talk page. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:01, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thecomputernerd01

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

Non-notable person. The only reliable source included in the article is [16]. After searching through the web, I can't find anything else that would demonstrate the significant coverage required for notability. It appears to be your average semi-popular YouTuber. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:35, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete possible A7, also fails WP:BIO. ///EuroCarGT 02:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 03:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 03:13, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've removed the YT source and the iTunes source, as neither can show notability and their inclusion isn't absolutely necessary for the article. Chomik's music being on iTunes doesn't really do anything to show his notability- we have a lot of people who fail notability guidelines that have their music for sale on iTunes or somewhere else. I've also removed this source since the review wasn't actually a review, as it was actually a brief comment by a teenager that they interviewed for a piece. Now the one thing Chomik has in his favor somewhat is that what sources do remain are from a relatively wide span of time and locations, so if we can find 2-3 more sources we could merit a weak keep. This could probably be merged to List of YouTube personalities, possibly, but I'm starting to get leery of including everyone since it's starting to become a little unwieldy. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:44, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merging seems like a good idea, may change my !vote to Merge. An issue is Google isn't a label company :D --///EuroCarGT 16:28, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Monty ₈₄₅ 20:22, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A credible claim of notability with sufficient sourcing to scrape by the notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 14:50, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The notability standard is "significant coverage in reliable sources". I do not consider 3 or 4 articles in the last 5 years as "significant coverage". We need significant coverage so that we can write a verifiable article bigger than a stub. Here there is no such coverage. I would have no objections merging the content we have to the list mentioned above. Mz7 (talk) (formerly Michaelzeng7) 04:27, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was AfD moot; article speedily deleted for copyright violation; no prejudice against re-creation in cleaned-up form. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:51, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Haitian French

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

Not a formally-recognized language or dialect of French. The intro calls it an umbrella term for all french spoken in Haiti, yet then lists "native to" as all places around the world where Haitians migrate to. Farcical and un-necessary content fork D P 11:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'm sorry, if "Indian French" can get a page about a language early spoken, I think it is fair to say Haiti should have a page based on its spoken French as Canada has, as Cuban Spanish has, as Dominican Spanish has, as African French has. French is the official language of Haiti as well as Haitian Creole.Savvyjack23 (talk) 11:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You need a source that the Haitian diaspora speaks Haitian French as opposed to generic French or acrolectal Haitian creole. IMO, we should only have national varieties of a language when (a) it is linguistically distinct or (b) common in the lit; otherwise we should have articles on language X in country Y. An article titled "French in Haiti" would be clear that it is about the status of the French language in Haiti, without linguistic implications. We also wouldn't have the problem of claiming that Haitian expats speak "French in Haiti". — kwami (talk) 21:39, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Haitian French seem to me a perfectly legitimate subject for an article.

Corinne Etienne (UMass) is a useful source on this. She has written on "Lexical particularities of French in the Haitian press: Readers’ perceptions and appropriation." Journal of French Language Studies (Cambridge University Press), 15 (3), (2005), pp. 257-277. And . "French in Haiti" History, Society and Variation: In Honor of Albert Valdman 28 (2006): 179. In this latter she directly disccusses whether Haitian French exists, how Haitian French is defined and how Haitian French is viewed. The article needs more work - not deletion (Msrasnw (talk) 17:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Keep. I don't know who needs to formally recognize Haitian French – definitions of languages and dialects are notoriously controversial – but there is a literature on Haitian French as distinguished from Haitian Creole. See for Schieffelin and Doucet: "Currently, most creolists no longer accept the view that Haitian French and kreyol are varieties of the same language, but regard them as two distinct languages" (1994 p. 179). Cnilep (talk) 05:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Msrasnw. Seems adequately sourced in the literature.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:42, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for obvious reasons already mentioned above Dwscomet (talk) 21:37, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Similarly (although also in a developmental stage), there is a "Français haïtien" article written in the French Wikipedia explaining a few differences as well. It also contains a paragraph similar to the language table on this article. Savvyjack23 (talk) 12:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow close/speedy delete as hoax. Like the other article TravelRail, I can find nothing to substantiate any of the article's claims- or that this even exists. If anyone wants, I can re-create and re-open this if they can show proof that this company exists. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

O'Donnell Group Limited

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

Created by a blocked user, no trace on Google to what the company is. NASDAQ and ISIN codes not found. WWW site produces a 404. Really non-notable company. aycliffe^talk 09:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's the usual UK train/bus vandal, as with every other edit they make it's pure unadulterated rubbish. Speedy delete as WP:HOAX. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow close/speedy delete. A search shows that this is a pretty clear hoax, so there's no reason to extend this to a full 7 day AfD. I'll recreate and reopen if anyone can prove that this actually exists. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TravelRail

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

Created by a blocked user, I really don't think this will happen, there are no sources and I have never heard of such a company. The parent company is a telecommunications firm, an article created by the same user. WP:TOOSOON? aycliffe^talk 09:33, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's the usual UK train/bus vandal, as with every other edit they make it's pure unadulterated rubbish. Speedy delete as WP:HOAX. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, likely WP:HOAX. If this outfit really had been awarded the Thameslink franchise to start in just over six months time, the railway press would know about it, and a google for TravelRail Thameslink franchise would turn up articles to that effect - but it doesn't. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:18, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Lisa Harnum

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

PROD citing WP:NOT#NEWS was contested by author. That policy states, "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." This seems to fit - this seems like tabloid fodder, not an event of enduring significance. VQuakr (talk) 08:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not an event of large significance, but if that last section dealing with the subject's life was a WP:BLP, it would be rightly struck from the article as biased information which doesn't detail her medical conditions beyond shock value. Nate • (chatter) 09:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In response to the claim that the event is tabloid fodder, we have had an article for Schapelle Corby's case for years, which received Australian media coverage of a similar extent to the case we have here. Because the woman at the centre of the story was a Canadian the effect goes beyond Australian borders. When we have multiple international papers documenting the case (1 2 3 4 5 6) I think the coverage in the media justifies notability, especially given its WP:DEPTH and WP:PERSISTENCE. And I'll point out too that the sources I provided are WP:RS. CR4ZE (t) 10:18, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's discuss Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines and this article, not WP:OTHERSTUFF. The headline of one of the sources you just linked is Stripper girlfriend stages bizarre protest as her killer boyfriend is sentenced for hurling ballerina fiancee from balcony. "Depth" is not the impression I get from the coverage; "tabloid journalism" is. Can you please review your list and provide the three sources that, in your opinion, best show how this event is of lasting significance? VQuakr (talk) 16:49, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:BIO1E seems to apply. Obviously Harnum's death is tragic and horrible, but hundreds of people are victims of murder every year, and we can't document them all. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:11, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:BIO1E, whilst the death and court case got a spike in coverage. the case itself did not result in changes in legislation, police practices etc. Unfortunate murder yes, but how many domestic violence deaths occur every year between partners? LibStar (talk) 01:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not meant to document Lisa Harnum's life, so I don't think WP:BIO1E applies; rather, the bulk of the information we have about the case documents the legal proceedings involving Gittany. I placed an underconstruction tag to show that the article may not be up to scratch, but it's sitting at an AfD before I've even had the chance to develop it. Would people be more receptive if the article was titled "Trial of Simon Gittany"? CR4ZE (t) 10:12, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how it would have long term notability. Next week, the media will stop reporting it, he will be in jail and that's the end of the news cycle. LibStar (talk) 10:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like WP:NOT#NEWS to me. I just can't see any enduring significance. Doctorhawkes (talk) 11:56, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. WP:NOT#NEWS, this is a single death at the hands of her fiancée. An open and shut case, with no lasting consequences. Unfortunately cases like this are too common, and each one does not deserve a wikipedia article. Martin451 14:21, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fun Spot Trampolines

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

Contested prod. Subject fails WP:CORP - no significant coverage from third party sources. SFK2 (talk) 06:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Source searches are only providing passing mentions and directory listings of the company in news articles and books. Doesn't appear to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Northamerica1000 - I can likewise only find passing mentions in the press. Tried to improve it a bit, but there's not much to go on. Ruby Murray 12:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Delete all per overwhelming consensus -- RoySmith (talk) 05:19, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Matěj

(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. PROD was contested without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:13, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following articles for similar reasons. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all – the PRODs were removed with the message "Let's wait a couple of weeks when the season starts and see who is playing on this fully professional team before deleting" but WP:CRYSTAL does not allow for advance creation of players who may be notable in the future. None of them have received significant coverage from multiple secondary sources and none of them have played football in a fully professional league. C 679 05:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - (or incubate all). There's a good chance a number of these will meet our criteria very soon but they don't yet. The only one I'm not sure about is Vlastimil Veselý for whom there seems to be a few instances of WP:NOENG coverage but it's confused by coverage of someone else with the same name. Stalwart111 11:13, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Veselý, is playing for your country at U21 level not enough? - filelakeshoe (t / c) 13:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think that's what the coverage relates to. Stalwart111 06:47, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not unless the general notability guideline is met. This is explicitly stated in WP:NFOOTY (senior international match). C 679 11:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly right, as is your comment below. This should be a reactive process, not a pre-emptive process. Stalwart111 11:54, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - all appear to fail both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:43, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate all - yes, WP:CRYSTAL and all that, but it's really not that long til the season starts. - filelakeshoe (t / c) 13:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Veselý is not even listed on the club's squad at their website, and Macej is probably third-choice 'keeper, thus being very unlikely to play professional football this season. No specific comment on the likelihood of the others playing, but articles should be created reactively and not proactively with this in mind. C 679 11:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - per CRYSTAL. Let's see who actually plays and passes notability guidelines and create articles then, rather than keeping a load of articles on players who might at some point. Fenix down (talk) 12:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - Fail both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL JMHamo (talk) 16:45, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of them seem to have significant independent coverage or meet WP:FOOTY. Some of the them have played for junior national teams and might someday play for the national team, but right now it's WP:TOOSOON. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 13:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all None of these meet notability requirements.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:33, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete; redirecting to the article on her late husband Gene Scott may be done at editorial discretion. The main issue here is reliability of sources. From the discussion, much of the subject's attention has been due to a text in the magazine Marie Claire, and it has been established that it is not a reliable source. Looking at the article, this is covered in a section entitled "Secretive past", which appears to consist of speculation. Much of the rest consists of fairly general personal data, made up of sources that contain very brief coverage.

Several of the keep votes have suggested that the article ought to be fixed up becuase the subject is notable, and one provided some sources to show that the article can be fixed up. However, even if this is so, in this case we have an issue with unreliable sourcing on a matter that is invasive on the subject's private past. That is a BLP issue that requires more urgent action than waiting for someone to fix up the article. The consensus is clearly against having this as a separate article.

The choice is therefore between a merge/redirect and outright deletion. The subject is covered in the Gene Scott article, which might suggest a redirect even if there is not really a consensus for it. However, I am calling this an outright deletion since the BLP problems would otherwise remain visible in the page history. Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:33, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Scott (pastor)

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

Nominating this mostly procedurally, but also because it needs a discussion. This is a BLP about a woman who took over pastor duties from her husband after he passed (Gene Scott), but does not appear to have any singular notability except for a theory pushed by Marie Claire prior to her conversion to Christianity. As I believe it to be a possible BLP violation, I will not link to it here, but it is in the talk page, the history, and some discussions in the BLP noticeboard otherwise. I do not see how this person has enough notability to maintain an article even with the questionable material, nor are there enough reliable sources to do so even if the notability was conferred by the questionable theory. So I am nominating this for deletion, and would currently likely vote in favor if I ran across it today at AfD. Previously kept at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melissa Scott (televangelist) in 2006. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:32, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed multiple times, in multiple places. Here it is, again. It is neither a "theory", nor a "BLP violation". The "Barbie Bridges" stuff is completely verifiable through public records. The problem is, that at this point, we have no way to get it into the article without straying into original research. It's not in the article at this time, and it shouldn't be. This is because it would violate WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH; not WP:BLP. There's a big difference. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:35, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thanks to the fellow editor for bringing this request. I DON'T agree that this article would still lack notability if Marie Claire were added. But in any case, MC is effectively "banned." One or more admins even tried to ban it from the talk page, which not only I think is absurd. As it stands now, there are no valid sources in the stubby article at all, except 1. as rel her husband, 2. about a church that was sold which is not tied (@ least in the art.) to MS, and 3. about her preaching broadcast schedule. IMO WP BLPs should not function, especially exclusively, as advertisements for their subjects. I am an "inclusionist." 'Have never supported deletion of a WP article I'm sure. But this one IMO should go. Paavo273 (talk) 18:02, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A quick indpendent search on the web turned up a good deal of sources on the subject. Clearly it should be scrubbed to meet WP:BLP and then protected if necessary, but deletion is not the solution.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:16, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Clearly it should be scrubbed to meet WP:BLP? What the hell is in the article at this point that doesn't meet BLP? Joefromrandb (talk) 07:25, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Can you link some of them here for review? Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Here's one that says that due to vandalism the Wikipedia page had to be removed. I think we can protect pages now... --Paul McDonald (talk) 20:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's the article that's been "banned by WP" because it mentions her past as a nude model and porn actress. Paavo273 (talk) 20:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Is there an actual link to the discussion about the "banning of the source" by Wikipedia? I can't find it and would like to know more.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Even if a theory about someone's past can confer notability on them, we need multple, reliable sources. Is there more than this rumor? Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't believe it is a theory or rumor. IMO it's either a fact or a falsehood. MC 2009 cited multiple sources w/ 1st-hand knowledge of MS. If MS is not a Public figure (as in New York Times v. Sullivan), she could have owned the MC company and all those other people who talked "bad" about her to the article author--if it were false. Even if she is a (limited purpose?) public figure, I would think she could have proved the "actual malice" required and still owned 'em all--if it were a falsehood. Paavo273 (talk) 21:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Hi Paul McDonald: I'm glad you saw the follow up comments to your vote. It wasn't actually "official" action. More of a de facto banning. Mainly some heavy-handed actions by one or more certain WP admins. (who even tried to ban discussion of it on the talk page) and a chorus of some people who seem to have a personal emotional need for this article to exist, WP rules be damned (probably the basis for s.o. placing the "close connection to subject" tag). I'd refer you to the talk page, especially the top half to see how it went down,e.g., (1--bottom 2 lines of section) and (2--bottom 3 lines of section) . Coincidentally, an unusual number of prior participants on that talk page (weirdly or by coincidence) have been blocked from or voluntarily exited WP. One would have to go back into the history of the talk page to find the actual diffs., but the admin. who doctored the talk page literally expunged the MC2009 material from talk as promised by that admin in my Wikilinked refs above. Another user later added some of it back with his own critique.Paavo273 (talk) 23:23, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be I. Please note that I added it back after a WP:BLPN discussion deemed the material to be acceptable to discuss on the talk page. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:50, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There's nothing there to scrub or protect. As per copious discussion on article talk page: No notability, and totally lacking meaningful content or source citations because there are NOT any valid sources on the WWW except Marie Claire 2009 which has been "banned." Paavo273 (talk) 19:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The Marie Claire article hasn't been "banned". It was deemed by consensus to not meet WP:RS for WP:BLP purposes. Prior discussion at the BLP-noticeboard has, however, deemed the article perfectly fine to link and discuss. It's quite conceivable that a better source may be available in the future. It is for this reason that I advocate merging it to Gene Scott–thus preserving the article and its history– until we can have an article that covers her entire life, rather than the tiny portion of it that is currently covered. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:45, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - 'Don't know how I missed that. Must not have watched the article. I wouldn't object to a merge as long it involved losing the plug for her broadcast schedule in the text of the article. (Let's face it, there's not much to merge.) That info could be IMO appropriate to keep as a link to the cited broadcast website in "See other" or "External links" @ end of GS article. Paavo273 (talk) 18:51, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or merge to Gene Scott. It seems that there isn't much about her lately; there was a time, around the time she started taking over the preaching [17], she did have a higher profile (even leaving aside the rumor discussed in that Marie Clare article). Given the anodyne nature of what's there now and the apparent unlikelihood that the article will be expanded meaningfully anytime soon, merger to Gene's article might be the best alternative. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Gene Scott, per my previous proposal. It was opposed, with the false argument: "we have different article-standards for living and dead people". If anyone opposes a merge on these grounds, please note that WP:BLP would absolutely not cease to apply in such a case; it is in effect anywhere any living person is mentioned, anywhere in the encyclopedia. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:18, 1 February 2014 (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/2014 February 2. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Offline 14:32, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This should already have been speedy closed as there is no deletion nomination and no WP:BEFORE. Requests for comment are handled under RfC. affaritaliani.it is a publisher with articles on both the English and Italian Wikipedias. [18] states, "La nota predicatrice televisiva..." (the well-known television preacher). The Wikipedia article itself has attracted attention in the press (MC). So much for wp:notability. Research shows that other names for this topic are Melissa Pastore, Melissa Pauline Peroff, Barbi Bridges, Barbie Bridges, and Mrs. Eugene Scott. As for the argument that the ministry is shrinking, notability is not temporary. Merging with the bio on the previous church pastor would confound the issues of Christianity and nudity with the Gene Scott ministry. Is there any source to show that Gene Scott was aware of the nude pictures? There is little overlap between the two topics, and Gene Scott had more than one wife. Unscintillating (talk) 00:45, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "Merging would confound the issues of nudity and Christianity with the Gene Scott ministry". I don't see how it would, as there is nothing about it currently to merge. It won't be in the article until either a better source is found or there's a change of consensus as to the Marie Claire piece. When and if that happens, there still won't be any confounding, as the article can simply be moved back to a standalone. You're right about there being very little to merge. This is a pathetic article, and it wouldn't bother me one iota if it were deleted. I just figure that per WP:PRESERVE, it would be better to merge to retain the history. History, as in back when the article actually contained some information about her. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:39, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you've been unable to build consensus on the talk page for a merge, why should AfD overturn the current consensus? The policy WP:ATD does not allow the use of AfD for what are really content disputes. Unscintillating (talk) 04:22, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WTF? There's not really a content DISPUTE, more of a DEARTH of content. It appears IMO that WP:BEFORE has been solidly met. And WP:Notability (people)#Basic criteria states in part, "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[4] and independent of the subject." Here a specific "finding" by "consensus" was made by the involved editors (not me) that MC2009 is not reliable, d/n qualify for use in article. I'm not optimistic affaritaliani.it would meet the required standard set by these august contributors. ‘Haven’t read the WP policy about "confounding/overlapping Christianity and nudity" Even if that one exists :-), it's IMO not relevant 'cuz nudity can't come in per the "consensus." Is there really some other technicality that wasn’t followed? Paavo273 (talk) 06:09, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What the hell are you talking about, Unscintillating? "Unable to build a consensus"? "Overturn the current consensus"? "Content dispute"? What article are you looking at? I proposed a merge quite some time ago. It got precisely one response: an "oppose" by an editor who mistakenly thought that WP:BLP would cease to apply to Melissa Scott if her article were merged into that of her dead husband. The fact that it got only one response, coupled with the fact that no one even bothered to remove the "merge" tags after over a year, shows how lightly trafficked this article is. The article, its talk page, and now this AfD, are a ubiquity of bedlam. "Merge" is as acceptable a result as any other at an AfD-discussion, and there is nothing that even remotely approaches a consensus on the talk page. Some time ago, an editor attempted to block any attempt to even discuss how the article should be handled. He made all kinds of bizarre removals and redactions, rendering the talk page an unreadable mass of lorem ipsum. I attempted to improve the article to the small degree that was possible; this included restoring the talk page. Restoring the talk page meant hours of sifting through endless revisions to make the fragmented discussions make sense. I also had to double-check that no actual BLP-vios removed during the slash-and-burn were accidentally returned, monitoring simultaneous discussions at the article talk page and the BLP noticeboard. The only other editor who was interested in this article was the one who made the ridiculous removals. He quickly lost interest when the BLPN discussion didn't go the way he wanted. I would have been perfectly within my right to boldly merge the article at that point. It would have been equally acceptable for me to have merged it when, after a reasonable amount of time had passed since the merger had been proposed, it received neither support nor opposition. I honestly don't give a fuck if the article is kept, merged, deleted, or made tomorrow's fucking TFA. Just don't misrepresent my actions or opinions. That I was "unable to build a consensus on the talk page" is utter bullshit; ditto for "asking AfD to override current consensus". If you can't be arsed to research the history you should abstain from commenting here. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:27, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I am explicitly nominating this for deletion. As my final sentence says, "I do not see how this person has enough notability to maintain an article even with the questionable material, nor are there enough reliable sources to do so even if the notability was conferred by the questionable theory. So I am nominating this for deletion, and would currently likely vote in favor if I ran across it today at AfD." Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article for dishonesty. It fails to note Pastor Scott was formerly a porn star know as, "Barbie (Barbi) Bridges." http://xhamster.com/photos/view/1656994-27245364.html#imgTop — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.94.168.143 (talk) 11:40, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Failing to note something is not dishonesty and dishonesty is not a valid delete-rationale. Joefromrandb (talk) 12:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOFIXIT. Incomplete information is not a reason to delete. If it can be confirmed and doesn't violate policy, then add the information.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion seems to just go around in circles. The problem is there are NO qualifying sources. The quantity of Internet sources on topic has shrunk to nothing (except MC2009, which has been disqualified); it hasn't grown. Please READ the article.

The Italian source mentioned above, complete with a nude photo of MS, seems hardly reliable, hardly scholarly.

To keep an article just 'cuz some day a qualifying source might turn up mocks WP's rules WP:NOR, WP:Notability, etc. The main objection to this article IMO is that it says nothing and what extremely little nothing it does say is sourced to GS or MS--and even the MS-sourced cite is dead. Paavo273 (talk) 00:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm honestly tempted to simply redirect this article. While doing so during an open AfD-discussion is discouraged (not forbidden), as you said, this is just going around in circles. This discussion is obviously headed for another no consensus, meaning yet more time wasted on such a ridiculously trivial individual. Joefromrandb (talk) 11:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find it listed anywhere, but I'm pretty sure that "wasting time" is not a reason to delete.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell is your point? What are you trying to refute? Joefromrandb (talk) 20:22, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If by tempted to "redirect" you mean to merge, Joefromrandb, I support that move. My close reading today of WP:Deletion policy turns up one or more ADDITIONAL bases to DELETE this article as well. That includes lack of at least one reliable source. As it stands, the article says virtually nothing, especially after my removal of the gratuitous and unsourced plug for her ministry, "speaks 20 languages..." or whatever.

One of WP's policies is to AGF. I always try to. It's normal when someone jumps into a discussion to not be fully up to speed about what's going on. But when a participant refuses to read and self-educate about the current state and history of the article, especially when pointed directly to the issues, and continues to merely interject comments not based on WP policy or the actual condition of the article, IMO a reasonable admin. could find consensus among those participants who show a baseline understanding of what is required for a WP article and are making informed, serious arguments. Paavo273 (talk) 21:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect to those who disagree, I don't find the anonymous contributor's vote to Delete based on "dishonesty" completely without merit. It's not exactly in the same sense as the anon. user meant, but IMO there are multiple instances going way back in talk of "arguments" approaching WP:I like it, WP:Begging for mercy, etc. which IMO add up more or less to a form of WP:Gaming the system, meaning reasoning not based on the article or WP policy. And that sort of input has not dried up here in the AFD discussion. If I'm wrong, anyone opposing delete or merge, please tie what you say to some SUBSTANTIVE and/or POLICY-based argument. Paavo273 (talk) 22:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. At Talk:Melissa Scott (pastor)#Book sources, I have added ~~three~~ ~~four~~ six books published since 2009 that cover Ms. Scott, one of which has an entire chapter devoted to her. This is more than enough to establish notability. — Brianhe (talk) 07:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Do these sources discuss the entirety of her life, or do they omit everything from her birth to her marriage to Scott? Joefromrandb (talk) 21:03, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Both Nightfall and Holy Sinner mention her life before Dr. Scott. If your point is, is her life story subordinate to his, it's just the opposite in the latter: Dr. Scott is mentioned peripherally in the chapter titled "Melissa Scott". — Brianhe (talk) 22:08, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit confused. You voted "keep" and added sources to the talk page, yet nothing has been added to the article. Why not expand the article using the sources you have found? It may sway opinions here, especially if the actual reason she's notable can finally be added to the article. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm kind of busy in real life at the moment. The nominator questioned the subject's notability and availability of reliable sources, and I spoke to that. AFAIK AfDs often proceed this way, not with a demand to expand the article before !voting. — Brianhe (talk) 02:41, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to point out that the ~~five~~ six books I listed as sources range from a straight up list of ministries, a novel, biblical commentary, film commentary, to an inquiry into misdeeds of the clergy. This isn't one-off reportage and I see no basis for a claim that someone with this kind of cultural impact falls beneath notability. — Brianhe (talk) 03:19, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"someone with this kind of cultural impact" ? :-) 'Might want to have a(nother?) look at those six sources and/or see my summary below. Paavo273 (talk) 19:29, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Only one of those books, the longer-form one specifically about her, could confer notability. The problem is that the piece is entirely reliant, again, on a rumor that is unsubstantiated and unproven and arguably a BLP violation. The question remains as to whether such rumors are enough to confer notability in light of BLP. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:18, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think TO has identified the problem here concisely. And because User Brianhe has been a main player in preserving this article yet if I recall correctly also in excluding any porn-career info about MS, this definitely calls for clarification.
Firstly, all but one of these six sources are IMO junk, completely worthless in establishing any notability:

(1) Barber 2010 mentions MS just once and IMO is surely no authority on her language abilities, so a ZERO. Barber's few words about MS mainly DO establish a now defunct CONNECTION between MS and the UA cinema, something completely missing in the article's mention of the historical building before a user recently deleted it.
(2) Beverly 2009 also mentions MS just once, to say she took over from GS; that is not in dispute.
(3) Rel Carmichael 2013, not sure how one would argue that sponsoring a pizza party at a remote state prison and giving out religious literature the inmates didn't like would confer notability. Just like Barber, Carmichael is surely no authority on MS's language ability; however, with multiple sources mentioning the language thing, it would be IMO reasonable to mention the language claims, but absolutely not in WP's voice as before.
(4) About Carvajal 2009, this is a NOVEL! WTF? In some obtuse way the mention of WP article deletion (taken from MC2009?) might confer a grain of notability on the WP ARTICLE. But it's a long logical leap from there to notability for MS.
(5) Next, Whitman 2009 appears to be a personal narrative of the author's spiritual or ministerial journey (e.g., "I study more in anticipation of ministry unto Jahweh all my life, and the tools Yahweh God has given me..." p.viii and "[MS] has often ... had periodic pastoral nuggets of exhortation for people to focus on only what she's saying, not anything else..." p.63) 'Can't see how any of these confer notability on MS. Sources can also still be found that post nude photos of s.o. alleged to be MS and either praise her looks or ridicule her perceived hypocrisy.

That leaves Webb 2013, which includes largely the same material as MC 2009. Since Webb is being offered as a reliable source to establish notability (IMO the ONLY one of the SIX offered by Brianhe for which a serious argument can even be made for establishing notability for MS), is Brianhe now totally okay with a discussion of MS's real or according to Webb, "theor[etical]", porn career? If so, we @ least now have something to use to flesh out the article a little. (Whether or not it confers notability and so deserves its own article is a separate issue, as others have noted.) If not, then these SIX references amount IMO to exactly squat.
If Brianhe IS offering Webb 2013 as a reliable source for use in the article--and to do so for any other reason w/b a serious self-contradiction--IMO MC2009 also deserves a revisit, because now we have a corroborating (and then some) source for MC2009.
Finally, one other issue that is likely to come up later if not now: Most of these sources are extremely dubious as not being printed by major publishing houses: Whitman--CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform; Webb--CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform; Carvajal--Fear Nought Publishing; Carmichael--AuthorHouse; ('Not sure about Barber's Reaktion Books.) Paavo273 (talk) 19:14, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Paavo, for taking the time to research these sources. I was puzzled that a "keep" voter would list potential sources on the talk page while making no effort to incorporate them into the article. Your analysis seems to help clear that up. I can tell you right now that if this source discusses "her theoretical porn career", there's no way it's going to be allowed in. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:01, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not defending the quality of each of the sources above as information that could go into an infobox; however I think my argument that they are, as an aggregate, evidence of her notability is still true. In brief, is a novel a good source for biographical details? No, of course not. Is it a good source for the notability of a non-fictional subject mentioned in the novel? Yes. I don't know if we have enough independent material to start talking about the alleged connections in Scott's past. And I have a right to change my mind in the 2+ years of watching and contributing to this article. However there is definitely enough to establish that she is a prominent cultural figure as a religious leader, and should have a Wikipedia article. I feel like the discussion has slid from an offhand dismissal, to a delete nomination without a serious search for sources (I found the first 4 books in a few minutes at Google Books), to, once they were found, criticism of the depth of the sources (a chapter in a book is trivial?) or the names of the publishers. People involved in this AfD have made unhelpful comments like the subject is a "ridiculously trivial individual", the article is being stood up by the "MS fan club" and "we don't need an article about every TV preacher." Please try to look at this objectively whether or not you like her message. Can we decide together at least that the subject is notable, then go on to decide how to improve the article, perhaps on its talk page? — Brianhe (talk) 17:53, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"I have a right to change my mind in the 2+ years of watching and contributing to this article." That IMO is absolutely reasonable. What is not reasonable is to just make up your own rules.
You can't just push your own theory of Notability such as "my [offered sources] are, as an aggregate, evidence of her notability..." OR "[T]here is definitely enough to establish that she is a prominent cultural figure as a religious leader, and should have a Wikipedia article." Just saying it 'don't make it so. ** "prominent cultural figure as a religious leader..."?! You've gotta' be kidding!
You can't have it both ways: offering sources you say are reliable to establish notability but then saying you're not sure if they can be used. There's simply no such WP authority. It is true that notability established by a reliable source is still subject to other WP rules. But there are not two different standards; either the source is reliable or it isn't. I agree with Joefromrandb that it would be helpful if you had edited the article according to your "reliable" sources. At the very minimum, you need to point out WHAT SPECIFIC PART(S) of what source(s) you find make her notable AND are reliable for inclusion in the article.
As for unhelpful comments, interjecting cavalier remarks or "offering" sources without REALLY offering them, or I.D.ing sources which clearly do NOT establish notability are IMO most unhelpful; and this sort of contribution wastes a lot of GF participants' time.
WP:Notability also specifies, "[Notability] is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." *** Given the current state of the article, IF no consensus can be found to delete, I wholly support and would gladly assist, if asked, any editor's action to merge the article UNTIL such time the article actually says something and might be worthy of a standalone. *** This article consists of all of seven lines and even that consists only of her taking over GS's "ministry" + her broadcast schedule; it not only includes nothing NOTABLE about her, it includes virtually NOTHING about her period--no biography, no education, no prominence, no connections, no cultural identity, no leadership, no anything. Instead of The Man Without a Past, this article reads like the woman without a past. Paavo273 (talk) 19:56, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, taking sources in aggregate is explicitly allowed by WP:BASIC: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." So, we have multiple independent, published sources discussing the subject as required by WP:BIO. Now why should the article be in jeopardy of deletion? — Brianhe (talk) 15:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because the weight of the references involve an unconfirmed rumor that is arguably a violation of WP:BLP? Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And because the other FIVE of six sources offered say nothing individually and therefore nothing together. Five times zero still equals ZERO. The critical second part of the sentence Brianhe left out of his policy quote above is "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability."

The question asked by at least two different editors that we still can't seem to get an answer to is WHAT specifically can we take from any of those sources--even if we assume they're reliable--that in any way--individually or collectively--establishes notability.

As with a lot of what occurred the last couple years on the talk page, what we have here IMO is continuation of a long-ongoing, heretofore successful effort to keep this article that borders on WP:Gaming the system--making arguments and "citing rules" in a way that appear prima facie to be valid but totally and completely lack substance. What reasonable person who knows this subject, even if s/he included all the source material actually excluded for lack of reliabilty, would take seriously the statement, "...[S]he is a prominent cultural figure as a religious leader"?! Paavo273 (talk) 19:20, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As I've said in past discussions, the Marie Claire article regarding the subject's past is true, but it cannot be verified without resorting to original research; that's the dilemma this situation has always teetered on. Until a definitive source comes along and breaks the story for good, what we're left with is a pastor of a church with no source coverage of Ms. Scott directly, but rather coverage of her late husband and the church itself. Tarc (talk) 14:45, 8 February 2014 (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/2014 February 9. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 08:13, 9 February 2014 (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/2014 February 10. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 03:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Who among you believe(s), just arguendo, IF the porn career WERE to come in (via Webb2013 or MC2009), that would make the subject notable? If not, then IMO it's clear what needs to be done here--posthaste. IOW, does a former non-notable porn model who becomes a non-notable tv preacher add up to a notable person? Paavo273 (talk) 23:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- If the rumor could be confirmed with reliable sources, I would probably argue to keep the article. As it stands, no one appears to be able to do so, which is why there's a problem: an article should not continue to exist based on the notability of a possibly damaging rumor. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:29, 10 February 2014 (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/2014 February 11. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 01:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(←) Without mentioning the controversial biographical material, I've incorporated book sources 1, 2 and 5 into the article, as well as pieces in The New York Times and D Magazine. — Brianhe (talk) 07:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Better have a COLLECTIVE look at those sources, y'all! Now the dubious porn sources come in but the porn info is censored out? WTF kind of logic or process is that? Good sense and I'm sure WP procedure rel reliability of sources can't allow that to fly. How will it be decided what comes in and what stays out? Is there to be a specially appointed WP censor for this article? What about the nude modeling? What about the pony-girl phase? What will WP readers think when they read the cited porn sources? Does anyone really think this is a viable way to source an article?

And why is a blurb (that includes porn info) in a LOCAL magazine and a 5-page "chapter" in a virtually self-published (CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform) book all about her porn past permitted while a researched feature article in a national magazine excluded?

The NYT obit's total mention of MS: "He is survived by his wife, Melissa." Mentioning s.o.'s name doesn't make her notable as per the missing second half of the sentence on WP policy you left out in your discussion above: "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." So please don't offer that one as establishing notability. Paavo273 (talk) 08:52, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, claiming that others (like me) who don't agree with your viewpoint are "gaming the system" and "wasting [other people's] time" is unproductive, uncivil and not AGF. I'm a longstanding member of the Wikipedia community and don't appreciate that comment. I've provided sources for this AfD in a completely appropriate way and have both invited feedback on them on the article talk page, and days later added them to the article as a demonstration of their suitability.

Let's do a little thought experiment. If the Nowheresville, Oklahoma Shopper's Gazette mentioned Pastor Bob in passing, and Pastor Bob's sermons are listed in the local gazette but never reached the eye of published critical commentary, maybe we would agree that it wouldn't support a Wikipedia article on Pastor Bob. However, if The New York Times mentions M.S. in passing, and the content of her sermons is also mentioned by a notable author like Stephen Barber (notice the bluelink), then I think we should agree that it supports a Wikipedia article on M.S. This is why the guideline says "trivial coverage may not…"; we have to take it in context and make a reasonable decision about what notability the sources (plural) confer. Not to mention the fact that coverage that would be trivial if it appeared in a local gazette doesn't quite equate to its triviality when the same information appears in the national newspaper of record; I think one could argue that any issue covered in NYT's A section is non-trivial by definition.

Now as to the sources I've offered. Claiming as you have that if only a small snippet of information is usable from a particular source, that source should be entirely invalidated, contradicts common sense and Wikipedia policy. Citing the NYT Eugene Scott obituary just for the fact that M.S. is his wife, is fine, and in fact this biographical detail wasn't captured by any online citations so it was even necessary. Citing the book Holy Sinner which has controversial bio details I'd rather not touch at this time, to establish that M.S. has claimed knowledge of many languages, is also appropriate. We can pick and choose the bits of each source that are appropriate and improve the article, and leave out the bits that either deal with off-topic issues, or touch on controversial material that we have agreed through consensus should not be in the article. You ask by what logic or process will good sources be found, by a judge? No, by consensus. This is not "censorship", it is abiding by the decisions of the Wikipedia editor community. The fact that you don't or won't recognize this reflects poorly on your grasp of Wikipedian principles. You are promulgating an illogical all-or-nothing approach that inevitably would lead to an empty shell of an article, which is pretty much where it stood a week ago, and exactly what I'm trying to avoid by adding well-chosen and well-sourced biographical details to the extent that they can be found. — Brianhe (talk) 01:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

* > > > Discussion continued below < < <

Questions. This person is pastor at "Faith Center Church" (currently redlinked). Does this merit an article? If it doesn't, why does Scott merit one? The claims made for her look ropey. (Actually the claim about her past is from a source that looks more carefully done than anything that is cited.) One claim within the current article is that "Scott is reported to claim to be able to speak 20 languages." There are two sources for this: an article that looks like the product of ten minutes' work, and a book from a very obscure publisher. Well, the claim is usefully discrete (and non-libelous). Let's see: Scott says herself that she has "a mastery of over 25 languages". That's five more languages; and mastery, excellent. This page offers her in not 24 but just three languages (Spanish, Japanese, Tagalog) aside from English. When I click on any of these links I see a video (often at a wrong aspect ratio) of her talking in English with an interpreter putting what she says into one or other of the three languages. Am I missing something? -- Hoary (talk) 13:31, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoary: 'Appreciate your cogent and slightly humorous, understated analysis. Great point IMO rel notable pastor @ non-notable church; I think you're the first to raise that. :-) Don't think you're missing anything. Would you care to vote? Paavo273 (talk) 22:10, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While I have no problem with deletion, the argument: if her church isn't notable, she isn't either", is the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joefromrandb, try this: If she isn't notable for activities or achievements outside her church (and as far as I can see she is not), and if her church is not notable (and I don't claim to know), then she is not notable. How'm I doing? (And is her church notable?) -- Hoary (talk) 09:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just saying that a pastor can be notable without her church being notable, and vice-versa. Notability comes down to significant coverage in reliable sources, something this woman, IMO, lacks. Joefromrandb (talk) 12:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoary: In my view the Faith Center is notable,[19][20] but its notability is largely based on its history and is essentially inseparable from the notability of its extremely famous former minister and its somewhat less famous current one. Which is why, after reading all the discussion here, I still come down in favor of merging and redirecting Melissa Scott to Gene Scott.--Arxiloxos (talk) 14:39, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Joefromrandb: Agreed--if this were being reduced to deductive reasoning ala "If A, then B" syllogisms. IMO, it's just one more illustration of the nothingness/non-notability of the subject for a very long time. As much pointed out, she has to be notable some way to stay, and it sure isn't from her church. The UA Cinema where MS preached for a short time IS notable, but not because of her. She doesn't appear 2 qualify under Pornographic actors and models.

BTW, WHERE do you think this AFD is at? (I think it is at or close to consensus based on the WP:Consensus standard. For sure the vote but also IMO the level of reasoning is one-sided.) Paavo273 (talk) 18:08, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -Clearly the article has massive BLP issues due to verification problems and I'm not convinced the subject meets WP:GNG partly because of the verification problems.Blethering Scot 16:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this discussion shows, to me, a complete lack of consensus so far. Can another sysop re-list this or close it thusly? Bearian (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:32, 11 February 2014‎

@Bearian: What about this AFD shows a "complete lack of consensus" to you and why are you asking for another admin to close it? It appears that activity here is just now picking up, and that a consensus is building for merge or delete. Only a couple "Keep" votes based on misapplication of WP policy, and a growing number of merge and Delete votes. IMO & IME "consensus" is at best a SLIPPERY concept both in real life and in Wikiworld, often used by those who want to get their way and avoid an up/down vote. The WP:Consensus page does offer significant guidance including the following: "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." IMO that has serious applicability here. One or two contributors IMO are pushing the "Keep" position w/o much or any substance or WP policy to support them. As such, I respectfully request this discussion and hopefully building consensus be allowed to play out here.
If an admin. is to get involved wearing her/his admin. hat at this point, I'd ask that it be to join in the discussion and give an opinion of the relative strength of reasoning presented in this discussion rel WP policy and the facts of the article. Best, Paavo273 (talk) 20:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I just wanted to hold this open while we could do a bit more research before taking action. Bearian (talk) 20:37, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going with delete. The only really independent notability is some salacious allegations by a woman named Marie Claire. I conducted several research paths online, and found -- not much. There's a really nasty blog from the Free Republic, which is not a reliable source; nor are any of the blogs or websites she runs. The New York Times article mentions her, but only in passing, and in her husband's obit (which, FWIW, proves her husband's notability, not hers). The biggest problem I'm having finding reliable sources that might exist is that she shares a name with a well-known SF writer, Melissa Scott (writer). Bearian (talk) 20:49, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

some salacious allegations by a woman named Marie Claire I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or (pardon me) obtuse. Somebody called Gretchen Voss has a long article about our biographee, "The preacher's unholy past", on marieclaire.com (see Marie Claire). This is dated 2009. This suggests that it has been there for four years. At its foot we read "©2014 Hearst Communication, Inc. All Rights Reserved." Hearst sounds to me like a company that could shell out quite a bit in a libel payment, yet I infer that its lawyers have played down or dismissed the risk of a successful libel suit. NB I wouldn't be keen to have this material added to the article even if the latter survived AfD. Nevertheless, it looks more substantive than the dribs and drabs about the woman's linguistic prowess, etc. -- Hoary (talk) 22:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

> > > Discussion continued from few paragraphs above < < <

@Brianhe:

I've explained w/ evidence--quotes of yours, analysis of your sources, cited policy, etc.--my basis for believing your arguments here range from shaky to utterly w/o merit. No point to repeat.

It’s frustrating to keep pointing out broken logic seemingly ad infinitum. There’s no objection to using NYT to establish MS was GS’s wife. The problem is your level of reasoning about cumulative trivial nothing sources adding up to notability (still persisting in your "thought experiment" above). Obits. mention family members, whether it’s the NYT or the Bumblefudge Weekly Despatch. It doesn’t confer one iota of notability 2B named as a family member in an obit. And it doesn’t amount to “cover[age]” of the family member of the deceased "in a national publication". And adding sources like this together with the other sources you offered 2 establish notability, you still get NADA. 0 + 0 = 0 and 5 X 0 = 0

Well, what do other editors think?

In looking back at the prior discussions Brianhe cited on my talk page ( Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive107#Melissa Scott and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive188#Unreferenced defamatory assertions on Talk:Melissa Scott (pastor), I see the same broken reasoning as presented here. If Marie Claire 2009 was not a RELIABLE source and couldn’t be used, it IMO makes no sense to allow the use of much less authoritative sources that talk about MS’s porn career.

The ideas of “limited-purpose reliability” within a source and that WP editors are supposed to by concensus line-item veto or approve RELIABILITY (not to be confused with relevance) of info within a given source seems IMO completely unworkable. Is there any specific WP policy or precedent on point?

IM(revised)O, even if the porn career comes in, notability is still nowhere to be found. Non-notable porn model PLUS non-notable TV preacher EQUALS non-notable subject.Paavo273 (talk) 18:04, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment remember, consensus can change. Consensus can also be incorrect. I see no reason to disallow the Marie Claire article. I know that there are arguments against its use, I just disagree with those points. We should be careful to not just drink the WP:KOOLAID on this one and re-investigate the facts and not the folklore.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:48, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Libel or not, this article is still a total mess. Bearian (talk) 22:07, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eliminate. Either (A) delete and salt or (B) turn into a redirect and fully protect this. And ditto for actual or likely alternative article titles. (I neither know nor much care which of these two options.) Why? Well, the only thing that seems to have changed since the 2007 DELREV is that there is now a long and detailed article on a part of this person's life that she clearly wants forgotten (an article that is imaginably mistaken and libelous, though Hearst's confidence in publishing it and leaving it on the web for years makes me doubt this). As for her current profession, the other sources I've looked at seem to lack authority, or to be very slapdash, or both. If a DELREV concludes that an article should stay deleted, then it should stay deleted; unless of course it is agreed in a second DELREV that "notability" (or whatever) has changed so greatly that the article should restart. Here the DELREV was ignored (or not noticed), and though AfDs that result from unilateral restarts can at times give rise to mildly entertaining argle-bargle, they're mainly a waste of time. -- Hoary (talk) 01:50, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD so far, and request for further inut So far the vote is about 7-2 in favor of delete or merge. Consensus is supposed to be based on WP policy including the following: "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." It's not a vote, but rather the strength of argument(s). Brianhe has graciously provided links to the sources he's offered (except for the NYT obit. in the MS art. but I added)--they're all short and easy reading--along with his view of how they make MS notable. I and other contributors have offered analysis rel why we don't think they make her notable. See links to those sources listed on the talk page HERE.

QUERY 1: Does the Marie Claire article's admissibility need a revisit, along the lines of what Paulmcdonald is saying?

QUERY 2: But B4 we go there, if that's what y'all want to do, assuming we admit Marie Claire in full can someone make a WP-policy-based argument for the proposition that any OR ALL of the contents of that article, if included in the MS article, would make MS notable? (As mentioned above, IMO Non-notable porn model PLUS non-notable TV preacher STILL EQUALS non-notable subject.) Paavo273 (talk) 18:24, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Gene Scott or *Delete. Only looking at the article itself I fail to see anything in the article to make it worth keeping. Almoust everything about the church work was done by her and Gene Scott. It seems after his death she just took over and kept going but not really adding anything new. I admit I dont live in USA so for me this was the first time I ever heard of her but after a google search on her name I see she does seem to have some notibility atleast in the field of rumours. Still this article doesnt mention why exactly she is notable except of being a tv pastor amongts many many of them. Are we to have a page for each tv pastor? Can anyone even imagine how many there are around the globe? Still what is it that makes her a notable tv pastor? Merge the article with Gene Scots article would be the best option or delete it.Stepojevac (talk) 21:27, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ‑Scottywong | squeal _ 05:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brian H. Cameron

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

Non-notable individual, no coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, as required by notability and the general notability guide. What this articles comes across as is a simple Curriculum vitae, and the fact that the subject's place of employment issued a press release trumpeting the creation of the Wikipedia bio an active movement to use the project for marketing purposes. Being the president of a professional organization is admirable, but it is not an inherently notable position. Tarc (talk) 00:31, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : This is no high cited computer scientists, but his articles as listed at the DBLP Computer Science Bibliography have been cited in some (dozens) of independent reliable sources. This together with being founding president should give him (just) enough notability for inclusion. -- Mdd (talk) 01:02, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Being cited by others is not in itself a measure of notability. WP:PROF covers some cases for notability for academic types, but it is not a literal substitute for the general notability guide. If a person is to have a Wikipedia article, we expect that reliable sources have written about the individual to some extent. If such sources do not exist, then they do not deserve a Wikipedia article. Tarc (talk) 22:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
These source does exist (to some extent). For example the first source listed, describes some of the outcomes of Cameron's work in stating "... Importance of improving the curricula in schools of information systems in the business proposition of SOA as a strategy is discomfort of instructors in improving courses in information systems, so that they are current with industry methods and and practices of firms (Cameron, 2007)" (online) Based on this kind of (preliminary) observations I thought there was enough to start an article. -- Mdd (talk) 22:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 8 February 2014 (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/2014 February 9. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 22:06, 9 February 2014 (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/2014 February 10. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 03:33, 10 February 2014 (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/2014 February 11. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 01:49, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG DELETE. For the reasons Tarc mentioned above, and because of a massive undeclared COI. Interestingly enough, User:Nickmalik (Avinash Nicklas Malik) who is a major contributor to this article is on the board of the Enterprise Architecture Body of Knowledge with Cameron,[21] and obviously acquainted through the Federation of Enterprise Architecture Professional Organizations, [22] and quite unbelievably Cameron was surprised when his friend (I mean, "an editor") called him up to say "hey, dude, I wrote that Wikipedia entry you told me to write".[23]. I wouldn't be surprised if a connection between Cameron and Mdd (who started the article and has other suspicious editing behavior that compels me to wonder about potential COIs) were eventually uncovered with a few quick google searches. Burn this vanity circle jerk with fire.--ColonelHenry (talk) 05:09, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A google search will reveal no connection between Cameron and me, because there isn't any. There is direct contact between me and Nick Malik here on Wikipedia, and Nick Malik is closely working together with Cameron. However, if you would make that Google search you would find another very peculiar 2013 press release, here where Cameron explains that "After publication, the paper will serve as the new entry for EA in Wikipedia." This indeed happened November 2013, and I opposed toward that step, see here with no furter response. Personally, I admit that this kind of press releases are strange, but I think that should not affect our policy. I try to write not just about the main events of this field, but also about its origin and about the state of the art, and for that reason this article was started. -- Mdd (talk) 13:44, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:39, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- the article is a resume and there is a lack of good sources to turn it into anything else. He is not sufficiently notable to bother trying. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:02, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. --JamesMoose (talk) 07:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Denby bibliography

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

Not enough here for a stand alone article. Recommend merge into David Denby. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am guided by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Bibliographies#Author_bibliographies. Sunwin1960 (talk) 03:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. The nominator has failed to advance an argument for deletion. See criteria 1 of WP:SK. James500 (talk) 03:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw AfD nom You are right. This doesn't belong here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 14:35, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ratusz

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

~~Polsih-language dicdef as clear as it may be~~ - Altenmann >t 03:06, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn, since a real article has just been written, so this nomination simply no longer apply. - Altenmann >t 03:14, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:33, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:33, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:33, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ratusz Arsenał metro station (which was the original state of this page). — Kpalion^(talk) 08:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I just made in into a full-fledged article. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 22:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

VibrantSharer

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

Future website still under development, doesn't meet WP:NWEB. Though there is one possibly independent reference in the article, no substantive coverage found via Google. —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Company /product does not meet WP:GNG, the one reference it gives does not seem reliable nor are there any others found via Google. Beakermeep (talk) 04:27, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Way too soon for an article. Google returns almost no results, which is always a bad sign when trying to establish notability. Try again after the website launches and gets a bit of publicity. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Telba

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources. --Jakob (talk) 23:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:44, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is just a single sentence with no sources. Possibly redirect it to Wiktionary?Beakermeep (talk) 04:46, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice against recreation if reliable sources demonstrating notability have been found.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eloka Asokuh

AfDs for this article:

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

Was at AfD before as a bundled request but it was suggested that an individual AfD would be better. My original concern is still valid - Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Has not played in a Fully professional league or received significant media coverage other than routine mentions. JMHamo (talk) 21:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 21:24, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the article claims he played in the Nigeria Premier League, which is a WP:FPL, we need to see if we can verify that either way. Giant Snowman 09:25, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:43, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The wiki page for his former team Udoji United F.C. notes that he is a famous former player, and I believe he was with them when they were in the Premier League. This newspaper article [24] confirms his past (and pre-dates his Wiki page by 3 years). Nfitz (talk) 03:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can't use a Wikipedia article as a reliable source. There is still no evidence that he actually made a first-team appearance in the Nigerian Premier League and playing for Nigeria U20 is not notable. JMHamo (talk) 23:27, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I cannot find any reliable sources that show he played in the Nigerian Premier League, so he appears to fail WP:NFOOTBALL. He also fails WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 14:56, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league (or at least is not confirmed to have done so by reliable source), nor has he received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:28, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I also cannot find any reliable sources that show he played in the Nigerian Premier League, so he appears to fail WP:NFOOTBALL. No indication of any wider coverage for other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 16:17, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:13, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hunter Ahrens

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

I don't see any coverage for him to meet WP:BIO. —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:41, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are sources

Delete. The source included is not independent of Ahrens. I don't see any indication of coverage in independent, reliable sources. A Google search got nothing but social media and profiles written by Ahrens. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 18:05, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable individual. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 20:05, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Lober

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

Non-notable MMA fighter. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:25, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:25, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He meets WP:NMMA since he fought for a UFC title (although I don't know how with 3 victories in 10 fights going in).Mdtemp (talk) 19:44, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And he lost that too. Not sure being luck of the draw is notable.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:39, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Fought for a title in a top-tier organization, thus passes WP:MMANOT. His win/loss record should have little bearing on his notability, as many losing fighters can pass WP:MMANOT's strict notability standards (Maurice Smith, Tank Abbott, Daiju Takase etc.) Luchuslu (talk) 16:46, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't how he got that title fight, but he did--that's enough to meet WP:NMMA. Papaursa (talk) 05:03, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marques Brownlee

AfDs for this article:

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

I am the admin who closed the first AfD, as Keep. It was brought to my attention that I may have not closed this correctly. After reviewing the discussion, I am not convinced that I did. So, I am relisting this as an administrative action for further review. I offer no opinion on the desired outcome. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep obviously. The discussion should have been closed as no consensus, which defaults to keeping it anyway. Sportfan5000 (talk) 02:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:WEBCRIT. Any arguments about YouTube channel views, Google hits, or WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS cannot answer this failure of notability. Also, WP:NOTAVOTE. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:49, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I was surprised it was closed the first time, because Wikipedia is not about voting. So if 20 people say Keep and they have a poor rationale, and 2 people say delete per wikipedia rules, we go with the 2. And this issue of consensus needs to be cleared up. The remarks about he has a big following have nothing at all to do with Wikipedia criteria. I have no problem with his entry I have a problem with the total reliance on YouTube ref, which have next to zero weight in establishing Notability. Subject fails WP:GNG and this is not an opinion it is a fact. At best the article should be a stub and the excessive YouTube ref be removed.--Inayity (talk) 03:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It was spelled out clearly at the reliable sources notice board, and elsewhere that YouTube video blogs can be reliable sources. I think we use them here judiciously and in the spirit of reliable sources and avoiding original research. Sportfan5000 (talk) 04:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if you have a WP:LISTEN issue, but this is about WP:GNG where Notability first needs to be established. YouTube ref for Prince (musician) might be valid, but only after we establish is the person notable per Wiki standards. I do not know how much clearer that can be. And I will not repeat it again.--Inayity (talk) 05:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I will sigh as i repeat to you yet again, I think notability as likely the world's best technology reviewer, and other sources, have met GNG. That he has nearly a million subscribers, as well, also speaks to that. Bit feel free to fill up yet another page with your insistence that the floodgates will fly open and anyone with a YouTube account will now be allowed to have an article, that sky is falling hysteria just hasn't swayed anyone. Sportfan5000 (talk) 10:24, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, nice amount of secondary source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 04:54, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Notable subject and covered by reliable secondary sources. (The >1,000,000 subscriptions not taken into account.) Epicgenius (talk) 15:11, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cirt and User:Epicgenius Would you be so kind to point out these 2nd sources which justify a Wikipedia page? I see one interview with a Motorola CEO Dennis Woodside.--Inayity (talk) 16:24, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per my reasons in the previous AfD. --RaviC (talk) 21:14, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All the reasons from the last RfD. Renominating a few weeks after a clear keep is not right. There should be a rule against it or something. Darx9url (talk) 05:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"There should be a rule against it or something" Now is a good time to tell you that competence is required. If you haven't oriented yourself with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, you should probably remain silent in the Wikipedia namespace. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:13, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is needlessly uncivil. Encouraging people to essentially shut up, lest they make a mistake is caustic to a consensus-building atmosphere. Darx9url, you might look at Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. FWIW, I completely agree that this 2nd AfD after 7 days from the last one, is misusing the process. Sportfan5000 (talk) 05:28, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, another article just posted, Howe Student's First Million: Tech Reviewer's YouTube Following Reaches Major Milestone

Good add it to the article.--Inayity (talk) 19:38, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spot checking a bunch of the references, it appears that most of them are indeed trivially reworded versions of the same press release. -- RoySmith (talk) 05:29, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Borg Energy

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

Non-notable company. The company have published a press release, picked up and published by several different publications in India, regarding plans to invest in a large-scale solar power project in India. All citations provided appear to echo this same press release (note the similarity of wording of all cited stories). Further, the single story (in its multiple copies and echoes) does not verify any of the facts in the article which it is being used to cite. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:14, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A solar power company that targets solar units at 40,000 homes across India is notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henry9967 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Only if noted by independent sources, which these press releases do not appear to be. And targeting 40,000 homes is a lot different than delivering to 40,000 homes. Perhaps after they've actually successfully executed, the story might change. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did not cite the press release by the company. I cited sources from Business Standard, Financial Express, CNN-IBN, Zee News, The Hindu, Renewable energy technology which may not be the echo of the press release by the company. Those are independent top news publishers in India. If you do a search then you will find the company already started their projects in Indian state of Andhra Pradesh [25], Chennai [26] with the Power Grid Corporation of India where the scheme is implemented by the Indian District Rural Development Agency (DRDA) with the consent of the Archeological Survey of India (ASI). Now, I assume India's Govt. is not that fool to join hands with an energy company[27] without judging their capability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henry9967 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely keep... Come on! Not to mention how greatly this article has been sourced, especially for a 2 days old article. OccultZone (talk) 17:41, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples include:

– Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:20, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in independent third-party sources. Rehashed press releases do not count as independent in depth coverage. If such sources are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:53, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt if you really took time to actually read the sources. All the sources are independent of the subject, reliable and covers the topic in-depth. Please, let me know which sources you are pointing to as unreliable. Thank you,Henry9967 (talk) 05:23, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:33, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GNG and WP:ORG. References are independent of the subject.Iniciativass (talk) 15:27, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:43, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment When "independent news sources" contain phrases such as
  The BORG Astra Plus Home Series is ideally suited to convert house roof top into a micro solar power plant. Customers can now experience and purchase the BORG Astra Plus Home Series micro solar power plants from the exclusive BORG Power Play showrooms.[28]

or

BORG's Care Centres cater to installation and after sales services, ensuring that all service enquiries are addressed within 24 hours. Committed to making alternative green power a way of life, The BORG Astra Plus Home Series Range is a one stop solution to all household power woes.[29]

or when four of the "independent" sources ([30], [31], [32] and [33]) list the same headline and the same or very similar text

one must question the independence of such sources and conclude that these are essentially press releases and advertorials place by BORG. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:28, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- - I see why you see them as press-releases but your conclusion may be wrong. The 4 links you pointed out([34], [35], [36] and [37]) are not press-release by BORG but published by the most reputed and largest news agency in India, Press Trust of India which has no history of publishing promotional materials for a company/promoting a company. Besides, I have included several other references from national news sources which subtentially covers the topic and their business in power-hungry states of India. Also, they have been featured in local TV news for alternate energy solutions. This is another source[38],[39] which have not been included in the article.Henry9967 (talk) 16:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Regarding Henry's latest statement: if multiple citations are really just echoes of the same PTI release, then we should really only cite one of them (citing the same release in multiple publications gives a false sense of the significance of the coverage). Whether or not the PTI coverage can be considered significant and independent, given that it is merely the report of an announcement by the company's local representative, is debatable. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Okay, I present now Borg Energy installs solar-wind hybrid power system at Vellore Fort, Borg to ease energy crisis and [BORG Energy Private Ltd enters Andhra Pradesh http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/BORG-Energy-Private-Ltd-enters-Andhra-Pradesh/articleshow/22097498.cms] to support my claim of notability. Please, comment. Thanks,Henry9967 (talk) 17:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Plus BORG Energy opens solar power solutions store in Hyderabad from the Hindu daily newspaper and Will Borg Energy change the state of Indian Power situation also Solar energy for a better tomorrow?. Regards.Henry9967 (talk) 17:56, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article this is a company with a worldwide presence, with the HQ in Texas, but yet all of the sources appear to cover Borg investing $45M USD in India, or that they are unveiling a new product range for sale in India. Most of the sources also read like they were based on a press release, saying little about the company outside the event covered. For me this isn't in-depth coverage and also tells me that this company is likely to be non-notable (along with millions of other companies) so unfortunately I have to say delete for now. Bjelleklang - talk 19:11, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am updating my opinion to Delete. I think it is too soon. A project is anounced, but otherwise there is no coverage in reliable independent sources. Very little information to write what this company is, how it's structured, who's in charge of it. Let's see what develops and revisit a year or two from now. if in fact it becomes established we can recreate with proper sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:28, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:21, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jo L. Walton

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

No indication of notability according to WP:AUTHOR, WP:ACADEMIC or WP:BIO. Ruby Murray 14:08, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Ruby Murray 14:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Ruby Murray 14:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the outcome is a delete, consider adding some mention to Jo Walton - also poet and SFF author of the same name, so liable to be confused Catcollier (talk) 00:24, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:33, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm looking for sources and cleaning the article, but I will say that if this person ultimately fails notability guidelines then the typical action is to not add a mention of her on any other articles. We almost never put hatnotes on top of articles unless the person in question has an article on Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was initially very skeptical, but after weeding out all of the blatantly unusable sources, quite a wide variety of usable ones do remain. I'm unsure about the Edinburgh Spotlight, but the rest of the coverage is in places we'd consider to be reliable. It's not the heaviest coverage, but what is currently on the article is enough to assert notability. I'm sure that there's more out there, but it'll take quite a bit of searching under each of the various names to find them all. I'll drop a note on your page, Catcollier. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources are excellent. -- GreenC 16:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn - I agree, the sources are now excellent, and subject is clearly notable. Thanks Tokyogirl79, for finding sources that I couldn't. Ruby Murray 18:11, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Due to low participation, this is closed with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 00:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ConDrain

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

No evidence for notability: all the refs are local, Press releases, or both; good evidence for promotionalism: three pictures of the founders, extensive discussion of minor products. DGG ( talk ) 07:32, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:25, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:25, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:CORPDEPTH per [40], [41], [42]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:35, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Excess pictures were deleted, 04:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madasaged (talk • contribs)

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) 02:30, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - edited to remove traces of promotionalism and unnecessary discussion of products — Preceding unsigned comment added by Etakc (talk • contribs) 17:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:20, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. slakr^\ talk / 14:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kristen Gremillion

AfDs for this article:

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

Previous AfD closed as no consensus. Page was created by person, COI. Person is not treated by secondary sources, and no evidence exists that person is anything other than a run-of-the-mill professor. Person's h-index is weak, single digit. Page reads like a resume and contributes nothing to Wikipedia. Page gets less than 3 page views a day. Abductive (reasoning) 05:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I find a GS h-index of around 14. A little bit below the border line. Too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. I agree that 14 is conventionally in the "borderline" region, but it's worth noting that anthropology is a low-citation field. WoS shows her 26 papers have been cited collectively >250 times by other archival papers and, importantly, almost all of her papers are first-author or single-author publications. These figures suggest she's a noted authority in her field. Agricola44 (talk) 22:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
- Do you have a secondary source that says that? Because otherwise, that's just opinion. Also, only one article, Chenopodium, links to her article. Not much of a leading expert. Abductive (reasoning) 06:44, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The link I furnished above is to an empirical study published in the Journal of Sociology showing citation rates are much lower than, for example, biology. Because we don't "self cite" here, there's no need that Wikipedia recognizes her as an expert. The salient point is that the academic world recognizes her as such and this is demonstrated by >250 citations by other journal articles to her work. Agricola44 (talk) 15:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

- - Several other articles cite her work and should be linked to her article if it is kept. They include Watson Brake, Oxidizable carbon ratio dating, Paleoethnobotany, Archaic period in North America, Native Americans in the United States, History of Native Americans in the United States, Food history, Poverty Point culture, and Handbook of North American Indians. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. It's still a bit of a borderline case, but there have been two positive developments since the inconclusive 2009 AfD: she was promoted to full professor (at Ohio State, a major research university) and she published a book "Ancestral Appetites: Food in Prehistory" that I think was aimed more at the general public than at academia and that has attracted some media attention [43] [44] [45]. That's enough to tip the balance for me. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- full prof at a tier I research institution definitely passes the Average Prof. Test for me. GS cites and h-indexes are not used often for anthro. promotions and those citing them should be able to show what an average notable h-index in anthropology is before using them as evidence. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 18:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:27, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing anything to distinguish he as being notable per guidelines. Where is the substantial coverage in reliable independent sources? Candleabracadabra (talk) 05:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the scholar link above. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:21, 11 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Please note that the subject of the article is a woman, so "he" is not the appropriate pronoun. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 20:15, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Look like a typo for "her" to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:32, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:47, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Hamblin

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

Subject does not appear to meet WP:ARTIST. All the references on the page appear to be by, rather than about, the subject. The only source I could find about the subject is this article[46], which isn't enough for notability. Wieno (talk) 04:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If there is in fact substantial coverage in reliable independent sources, it would be bes to start fresh. This article is an ad piece without reliable independent sourcing. Candleabracadabra (talk) 05:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Most of the "Keep" !votes assert that he "will be notable when he wins" or "will be notable when the criteria are changed". While WP:IAR is a thing, so is WP:CRYSTAL. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:17, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dustin Jacoby

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was previously deleted at AFD because he was not notable as an MMA fighter. Since then he's done nothing to add his notability in MMA and has started kickboxing. However, he doesn't meet the notability criteria for kickboxers (WP:KICK), either. The coverage is routine fight promoting and results coverage. Papaursa (talk) 02:41, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 02:41, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. I don't think Glory for kcikboxing is considered top tier although it would be nice if that was clearer as is the case with MMA fighters.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:24, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Glory is definitely world's top kickboxing promotion, without any competition, Dustin is last minute replacement, kickboxind deboutant, underdog and winner of for Road to Glory event, there are lots of aricles about it. 1-3 in Glory right now, but participates in a Glory middleweight tournament, and will fight there for a while.Master Sun Tzu (talk) 08:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe we need a referendum to change the kickboxing notability. Right now leading promotions are Glory and SuperKombat, but Glory is something special and supreme like the former K-1. I would also still consider K-1 notable and I would add Final Fight Championship of Croatia and Legend Fighting Show of Russia. The rest are probably not notable. My opinion is I hope objective and helpful. Dustin Jacoby is fighting in the largest promotion in the world. In addition, he won over Brian Collette in the promotion, ranked #6 by Glory.Illovecoffee (talk) 14:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Times have changed so yes, we need a referendum. Master Sun Tzu (talk) 15:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a year old discussion here but I suggest be bold and create a table like at WP:MMANOT for the discussion to revolve around.Peter Rehse (talk) 14:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Won a tournament in a major kickboxing organization. When WP:KICK is updated, Glory will surely be considered top-tier. Luchuslu (talk) 16:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fighting for a top tier kickboxing organization is not one of the notability criteria at WP:KICK--fighting for a world title is and he's nowhere close to that.

Delete or Userfy Doesn't meet current notability criteria and assuming he'll meet new criteria is WP:CRYSTALBALL. He won a tournament that qualified him to compete in a Glory event--it's like winning MMA's TUF. That's not enough to show notability or meet WP:KICK. Since there's additional interest, I've opened a notability discussion at WT:KICK#Fighter notability.Mdtemp (talk) 20:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Glory is the largest kickboxing entity in the world, it currently has some of the best in the world signed. (Saki, Sato, Gaerts, etc) Dstrange (talk) 00:47, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion isn't about Glory, it's about Jacoby. You give no reason why he's notable.

Strong Keep I still see notability here. Even if it isn't extremely recent, he still seems significant in the eyes of a basic WP:BIO... I'm not too involved in the sports arena here, but generally, the article seems good enough to keep. SayItRight1 (talk) 20:13, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't meet the notability criteria for MMA fighters or kickboxers. All of the coverage is routine sports reporting--lists of results and promotional output for upcoming matches. Lacks the significant independent coverage required to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 21:36, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:24, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:NMMA, WP:KICK, or WP:GNG. I don't see consensus at the ongoing discussion for making major changes to WP:KICK so he's still not going to meet the new requirements.204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:14, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Kickboxing notability criteria will not be significantly changed, but Glory will be top tier promotion. At least wait for March 8, 2014, if Dustin wins Glory tournament that will bring him the title shot and he will be notable. Master Sun Tzu (talk) 15:24, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's way too much WP:CRYSTALBALL. If he wins the March 8 tournament he qualifies for another tournament and if he wins that tournament he still won't be Glory champion--just like Joe Schilling didn't become champion winning the 2013 tournament. Why doesn't Glory have a champion in any weight class? Mdtemp (talk) 15:37, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right just delete it Master Sun Tzu (talk) 15:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability. Master Sun Tzu (talk) 15:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability for this type of activity.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:05, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The participation was low, if someone is interested, one can try again in a year.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Psyco Gundam

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

This does not establish notability independent of Mobile Suit Zeta Gundam through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. The references in the article are all either unsuitable or irrelevant to the topic of the article, so they do not count as significant coverage for the article. TTN (talk) 22:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am seeing third party sources in books published, [47], [48], (Common Knowledge of Gundam (ガンダムの常識), Futabasha ISBN 978-4-575-30150-2 P.92) as well as making appearances in American video games.[49]. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that sources are reliable sources does not mean their inclusion makes them instantly relevant to establishing notability. The first source is one of those collections of wiki articles that people put together and sell to suckers. That obviously doesn't count. Common Knowledge is referencing a minor bit of primary production information. That is not enough for notability, and I would not be surprised if the book was also primary given the details it is sourcing. I don't know how you could think sourcing its appearances would be an indicator of notability. That is not significant coverage in the least, and that would mean anything that has appeared in a couple pieces of media would be instantly notable. TTN (talk) 23:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First book is actually from wikia but the second book isn't exactly convincing. A reliable source for information? Yes, but I'm not sure a series specific guidebook counts as notability coverage in this case. The same goes for it being used in games. Dandy Sephy (talk) 17:01, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:24, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Iwan Ries and Co.

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

No claim of notability Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:26, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - First off, "one of the oldest family owned tobacco companies in North America" (per the article) is certainly a claim of notability. Secondly, the topic passes WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples include:

– Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:12, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'd call it WP:GNG rather than CORPDEPTH, but it is the same thing.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:02, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:20, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:GNG, WP:ORG. Article includes multiple in-depth mentions in reliable sources.Iniciativass (talk) 15:51, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arp-Madore 1

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

Unsourced, unreferenced, and non-notable. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 15:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~Keep; I can't seem to be able to locate this object on SIMBAD (although it doesn't seem to be a hoax based on Google Scholar results). Anyone know what it's listed under? Based on the GS results so far though, I'm leaning towards delete. StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to go by AM1 in SIMBAD, though other papers call it "AM-1". I believe this is the discovery paper: [50]. Certainly raised all the red flags for me on first look, but now I'd say it should be kept, since SIMBAD's bibliography provides numerous singular studies of the object. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 21:10, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at the papers on the relevant entry, I agree that it should be kept. This isn't to say the article is in good state; it isn't, and needs major work. StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:24, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added a few of the more relevant SIMBAD hits as references to the article, and expanded its text from them. As the subject of multiple independent published works that have this object in their titles, it clearly passes WP:NASTRO #3 and WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:00, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:18, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY and WP:NASTRO. The article has been improved since the nomination with references to multiple reliable sources in which this object was treated in depth. Nice work, David and Astrocog. --Mark viking (talk) 03:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yara Arts Group

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

Promotion of a non-notable arts group, full of copyvio images. damiens.rf 10:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:20, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jovan Ratković

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

Former Serbian political advisor. Cannot find evidence that subject has ever held an elected office, and I am unsure as to whether he meets notability guidelines due to lack of sources Flaming Ferrari (talk) 06:15, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher T. Gates

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

Subject has held various Non-profit organization positions including President of the National Civic League, Chair of the Colorado Democratic Party and Executive Director of Philanthropy for Active Civic Engagement, however I am not convinced that any of these roles constitute notability Flaming Ferrari (talk) 06:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Head of a state party is not notable; head of National Civic League (formerly known as National Municipal League) is, just as other really famous organizations. DGG ( talk ) 04:37, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:15, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG. Some of the references can be fixed using the wayback machine.Iniciativass (talk) 16:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Pop Idol (series 2). Mark Arsten (talk) 00:42, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Susanne Manning

AfDs for this article:

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

Former pop-idol contestant. Was not the eventual winner of the show. Unconvinced that she meets notability guidelines Flaming Ferrari (talk) 05:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:15, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. I googled her and she's done nothing of note i can find. An appearance on pop idol doesn't convey notability, suggest her page is redirected to pop idol series xyz as is common practice in these cases. Szzuk (talk) 20:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Claire Kober

AfDs for this article:

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

Article has been previously nominated and survived however I am not convinced that the Leader of a Council Borough is inherently notable Flaming Ferrari (talk) 05:14, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I would consider that leaders of London Borough Councils are inherently notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:14, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Full scale Grauniad interview and elected at a level that only just misses the GNG on its own. Also tangentially tangled up in a couple of high profile issues like Baby P and Mark Duggan. Neonchameleon (talk) 13:02, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Tipler

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

Subject is an automotive writer/journalist. Unconvinced if he meets notability guidelines Flaming Ferrari (talk) 04:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seems notable enough. Amazon Noted "authority" Publisher/vanity bio Woodshed (talk) 00:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:14, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His books appear to have been reviewed in reliable independent sources. That makes him notable as an author. Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:56, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mountainviews.ie

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

Subject fails WP:WEBSITE criteria. It reads in a promotional tone and there are almost no reliable sources. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:43, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jerusalem's Lot (Stephen King)

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

This does not establish notability independent of Stephen King's works through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. The only real world information is a rather trivial piece primary production information and three sources for a statement about Lovecraft influencing his work that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of the article. TTN (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The setting for one of the best know group of works in contemporary fiction. Such articles are not justified as a mater of routine, but they are in this particular. If it were one particular novel, a merge would be possible, but since many of his works are set elsewhere, there's really no suitable alternative location. Furthermore a search for references shoould be able to find published discussions of the setting as such. FWIW, the nom and I have argued this in many venues over the years, but I though some sort of a balance had been reached where it was accepted that WP coverage of fiction can include articles on plot and setting and characters where the works were sufficiently important. DGG ( talk ) 04:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:10, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Yeah, it's a bit crufty, but this is encyclopedic enough as an explanatory mechanism for one of the leading authors in American contemporary fiction. See, for sake of comparison, Yoknapatawpha County for William Faulkner or Middle-earth for J. R. R. Tolkien. Carrite (talk) 07:21, 6 February 2014 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 07:22, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heckford

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

Nice try, but not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:52, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A marketing agency marketing itself on wikipedia. There is no news coverage (AFAICT) in local sources, let alone national sources. SPACKlick (talk) 13:24, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as comment above article is marketing spam--Jeffrd10 (talk) 13:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:36, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Karmarama (advertising agency)

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of RS indicates failure of GNG BlueSalix (talk) 00:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable. Passes WP:CORPDEPTH per:

– In the event you haven't already done so, please consider performing source searching suggested at Section D of WP:BEFORE prior to nominating articles for deletion. Thank you for your consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:21, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:52, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:36, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Profero

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

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of RS indicates failure of GNG BlueSalix (talk) 00:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, is your !vote based exclusively upon sources within the article, or does it include the availability of sources via internet news and book searches? Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable. Passes WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples include:

– In the event you haven't already done so, please consider performing source searching suggested at Section D of WP:BEFORE prior to nominating articles for deletion. Thank you for your consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:22, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rees Bradley Hepburn

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable. Awards are minor and concept of being first carbon neutral advertising agency seems like greenwash. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've searched news archives and can find no coverage. Don't believe this firm meets WP:GNG. The two newspaper references in the article are dead, EcoArc makes no reference to RBHand the Drum reference is dead, Page is currently practically an advert. SPACKlick (talk) 13:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note presence of multiple awards shows notability.Iniciativass (talk) 16:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What awards have they received that are notable? Could you point me to the sources for those?SPACKlick (talk) 17:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:35, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Red Brick Road

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

Notability seems to be based on one event in 2013. No depth or wider significance. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep promotional wording needs to be toned, otherwise sufficient RS for a stub

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep It's not hugely detailed but has sources from 2006, 2009, 2013 so notability is down to more than one event. An alternative might be a merge to founder Frank Lowe (advertiser). --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Discussion in this AFD changed from supporting deletion or a merge/redirect to supporting a keep based on the number of reliable sources currently available and the current ongoing coverage. That said there were a large number of new accounts and IPs who edited this AFD and made the result somewhat unclear. For those who voted to delete/redirect/merge my suggestion would be that you give it a month and see if the coverage continues and hence the depth of coverage. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:45, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marius (giraffe)

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

A giraffe that recently attracted a few news articles after being culled, as every zoo in the world does to many animals every year. Not notable, and nobody is likely to care in a year. Tangentially, one would be forgiven for concluding at times that the English Wikipedia cannot have articles about current events without fringe activists' contributing their side's views in ways that violate NPOV and usually a few other pillars. Pak aran 02:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redir as below to Copenhagen Zoo, I would have suggested doing so if I'd seen the main article before starting this request. Pak aran 18:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See below Pak aran 17:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: The original nominator (Pakaran) appears to have withdrawn his nomination for deletion.--Nick Penguin_(contribs) 05:13, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A deletion nomination cannot be withdrawn where others support the deletion, see Wikipedia:Afd#Withdrawing a nomination. WWGB (talk) 07:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this should be kept open, which is why I did not close it or request closing. I struck my nomination statement because I reconsidered my personal vote, and I hope that that is not given any consideration beyond that of one less support, and more oppose, by an ordinary user. Sorry for the confusion :). Pak aran 15:38, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there will be no lasting significance to this common culling. Sepsis II (talk) 02:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 02:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cautious delete Although this incident may have raised some legitimate questions about the practice of zoos euthanizing healthy animals, I think this could be a classic example of a person or animal only famous for one thing. PatGallacher (talk) 02:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I don't think it warrants a separate article, but I don't want to see it get deleted completely. So I would say it's best to probably merge it with another article. SuperHero2111 (talk) 05:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't have a page prior to death, shouldn't have one now. It did nothing significant, and nothing significant happened to it. They should have fed it to the lions live, but they probably wouldn't have known what to do with it, further confusing the children. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.102.115.192 (talk) 05:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I searched for "Bengt Holst", no article title matches, but the article already considered for deletion came up. I went to the article for more information and related links. Gee, with so many prophets above knowing with exact certainty what the future status will be... Who knows, this could be a tipping point. 70.210.132.115 (talk) 07:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— 70.210.132.115 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete I'm going to stick my neck out here (chortle) and say it's non-notable and fails WP:NOTNEWS. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Copenhagen Zoo#Giraffe controversy and use the content in this article to expand that section. 84.198.53.190 (talk) 08:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Copenhagen Zoo#Giraffe controversy as above. Would make a lot more sense. --The Count of Tuscany (TALK) 08:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above. Per WP:NOT#NEWS, topic is not sufficiently notable to warrant standalone article. WWGB (talk) 09:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not the news. Hekerui (talk) 10:43, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP* Please keep this article, unlike the zoo who did not keep the giraffe. Marius the Giraffe (talk) 10:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— Marius the Giraffe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Redirect to Copenhagen Zoo#Giraffe controversy and use the content in this article to expand that section Gurumoorthy Poochandhai 11:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the nature of wikis is that such articles are created by well meaning individuals thinking that it's what news the public would want to read, forgetting that this is an encyclopedia for things of more than fleeting existence and relevance, and we have to suffer their existence for a whole week before it can be deleted. Ohc ^¡digame! 12:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Copenhagen Zoo#Giraffe controversy Deb (talk) 12:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that there's a similar story of lions being destroyed due to inbreeding, that is being reported today. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Copenhagen Zoo#Giraffe controversy The section there is already incredibly long for what will likely be a non-event barely remembered in 6 months. It certainly doesn't need its own article. SPACKlick (talk) 13:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleteeven though the article meets wp:GNG I think that now is a good time for wp:Ignore and go with my gut feeling which is delete.
Delete Wikipedia is not news a redirect would be more appropriate. Redsky89 (talk) 15:23, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Marius is now part of world history which has caused and may cause protests, death threats, etc. ukdirector (talk) 19:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— ukdirector (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

weak keep: by itself, Marius the giraffe would not be notable, but the level of news coverage, debate, and the article does meet wp:GNG. Is keeping the article THAT big a deal? No, and six months from now, we may revisit this and the delete would be unanimous and uncontested, but right now, there are a LOT of people following this giraffe, this story. I expect debates about animal captivity, and zoo handling to increase making Marius even MORE notable, even if it is just infamy. 198.24.6.201 (talk) 19:29, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— 198.24.6.201 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Yes I am new to editing the articles, but I still have an opinion198.24.6.201 (talk) 21:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Or you may be an existing editor attempting to !vote on multiple occasions ... WWGB (talk) 22:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Marius is the story of people reading rules and not being able to think when there is an obvious solution, because of the giant disconnect because people are interacting with technology rather than with others in the material world, yes he got deleted do not delete him again, the inhumanity of what happened and that is was considered normal course is a story worth repeating so this great mistake can be seen and it is not just the killing but that it was done publicly and people were advised it was education and then Marius was fed to the lions it is the level if obliviousness that is newsMasterknighted (talk) 19:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, should be a section in the Copenhagen Zoo article and no more (perhaps a note in an animal rights list, if one exists). --Zerbey (talk) 20:19, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Interesting to see how many clever editors already know how long this topic will be relevant, how many think they already know the full impact of the event, and how many inexplicably think this happens every day. Clearly passes WP:GNG, is reasonably well-written and the subject is creating a lot of internet traffic, far more than the zoo ever has. Another AfD six months down the line may produce a more obvious result, but keep it for now. People who don't understand the topic should stay out of AfDs. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, not lasting, not encyclopedic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vt catamount (talk • contribs) 21:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The official reaction in Moscow. The scandal unfolding around the world. [51] --Зейнал Вазимовский (talk) 21:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Official"? It's just the opinion of another zoo, not Putin! WWGB (talk) 22:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a commonplace practice, and there is nothing special about this giraffe. Merging content (if necessary) with article on the zoo or the general practice of culling is more appropriate. Risker (talk) 21:46, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Copenhagen Zoo#Giraffe controversy, where this topic is covered in entirely sufficient detail. This is not a notable giraffe, with no significant coverage of it prior to its death. At most, an article on the event could be argued for, but even that I don't think is justified at this point. Robofish (talk) 22:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I hope Marius' article brings much attention to this senseless tragedy. He has made ALL the major news outlets and will continue for the time to come. R.I.P. Marius the giraffe :— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.56.123.56 (talk • contribs)

— 71.56.123.56 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep or Merge with Copenhagen Zoo. - The article is about the story not the animal so it is irrelevant if it is a one-event notability. It just so happens that the title of the article is the name of the animal. If it were to be merged, it belongs to the article of the Zoo but in relation to that article's content, the info here may seem out of place, especially with regards to length.--Theparties (talk) 01:15, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Copenhagen Zoo#Giraffe culling controversy. The controversy is about the zoo and, on a higher level, the European Association of Zoos and Aquariums (EAZA) policy on maintaining the gene pool of giraffes. The zoo admits that 20 or 30 animals are killed each year. Having an article on each animal destroyed from this or any other zoo would make Wikipedia over-bloated with articles of this sort, and the Deaths in (year) articles and categories over-bloated as well. Erasmussen (talk) 01:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Redirect to Copenhagen Zoo#Giraffe Marius controversy. After all this was widely covered by media, Marius death (and mainly the circumstances it occurred at... healthy animal, alternatives refused, the way it was done, etc...) have been talked about around the whole world... not just one more trivial animal culling case. Don't think this should be deleted at all, else think it would req. considering same for a LOT other wiki pages. Marius had no space on the zoo... "whole world" talked about it... can't he even get some few KB's about it at Wikipedia also? Nars (talk) 03:52, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— Nars (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep. I am strongly against delete, but I'm honestly on the fence between keep and merge. My problem with articles being merged is frequently they become mere redirects with little to no content about the original subject. That is useless for someone legitimately trying to find out about the subject. Secondly, I feel this vote is premature. The person who nominated the article probably has no problem with hunting, the whole prey/predator cycle, but currently Marius the giraffe is a cause celebré, with thousands of people upset clouding the vote with passion and emotion. Will it matter six months from now? Maybe, maybe not. But he seems to matter now and as of this time, I think we should respect that. Thirdly, the rules of this site are bent and swayed according to consensus. My case in point. We require articles to be independently "notable". With independent resources, etc... I have seen dozens of cable network "celebrities" get voted off while a reality TV personality on NBC or CBS gets voted in. Teck Holmes, despite parts in more than two dozen movies and TV shows doesn't have an article because he isn't "notable" enough, but a contestant on Survivor can be included with no other credits. I care not one way or the other about Teck beyond making my argument. I know server space is a finite resource, but with all the hoopla, I think this meets notability. Antares33712 (talk) 05:05, 11 February 2014 (UTC) PS: I haven't edited in a while because hypocrisy, but for some reason I'm just giving my POV.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Antares33712 (talk • contribs) [reply]
Redirect BRDG-1E Candleabracadabra (talk) 05:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, I could also easily go with Redirect, but a lot of the info in the article, esp. over time, wont relate directly to the zoo, so its slightly better on its own. Just to be difficult, i think the article, if kept, should be renamed Killing of Marius (giraffe), as articles about people who were otherwise not notable except for their deaths, usually are titled in this manner. And, of course, its not just a death, but a killing. The section should not be called "Giraffe culling controversy", as this is not about the policy per se, but the notability of this one killing specifically, which may be setting off some broader debates on culling.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete There's little notability here; if anything's notable, it's the general policies of the Copenhagen Zoo. Most of the keeps appear to be simply trying to jump around WP:NOTNEWS by saying "Oh, it's important right now" but determining whether the notability is temporary is the *point* not something to just ignore. In addition, social importance is irrelevant here -- we care about the notability of the subjects of articles, not whether the articles aid or hinder causes. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 11:08, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This incident has clearly raised awareness about the morals and ethics of zoos and conservation, and shocked many people. These values are not widely discussed or reported on Wikipedia. For example, the article Culling does not even mention zoo animals. I think if this article is merged or moved to the Copenhagen Zoo article it may well be eroded in subsequent years, reducing the obvious impact of this incident caused by the culling of this animal. There are many articles on Wikipedia on individual animals with varing degrees of notability, and several of them for very similar reasons to this present article. In fact, there are whole categories on individual animals, e.g. Category:Individual elephants, Category:Individual cats, Category:Individual dogs, Category:Individual horses and yes...Category:Individual giraffes!! If we delete this article, I think there is a heck of a lot more deletions needed.__DrChrissy (talk) 11:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quick follow up - readers may like to take a look at Talk:Topsy (elephant). It has strong parallels to this current debate.__DrChrissy (talk) 11:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think this is a notable enough incident to be worthy of a note in history and therefore have its own Wikipedia article – I can imagine wanting to go back and read about it in years to come. And I agree with Mercurywoodrose's point (above), that if it is kept, the article should be renamed Killing of Marius (giraffe), for the reasons given. Booboo29 (talk) 15:31, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Copenhagen Zoo#Giraffe controversy, The animal only gained notoriety due to the media attention, the Giraffe itself was of no significant interest in to the Giraffe population in captivity or the wild. The controversy though does raise questions surrounding the ethics and treatment of animals born in captivity as was only contentious due to the other options being available to prevent the slaughter of an otherwise healthy animal. The Redirect to the Copenhagen Zoo would be appropriate as the issue was localised there. To retain the page would IMHO be against WP:NPOV and WP:CRITICISM. Scaredmo (talk) 16:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. In the long run I guess a paragraph or so in the zoo article will be appropriate. Averell (talk) 17:52, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Culling zoo animals may be standard practice, but went on largely ignored by the general public so far. This event is notable for calling public attention to this topic. András Dutkó (talk) 18:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— András Dutkó (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep This article is of a very notable event due to the controversy surrounding it and the fact that Marius has become a symbol for unethical culling, This isn't the first case such an article exists on Wikipedia related to an animal or a person who would be unnoteworthy if not for the controversy surrounding them.. 62.198.162.25 (talk) 18:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— 62.198.162.25 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Redirect as suggested above, per BLP1E. Or, more technically, BLG1E. Giant Snowman 18:47, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blatantly non-notable, non-lasting, single news "fad" subject. Not to mention severe NPOV issues in article's current state. If necessary a condensed version can be merged with specific/general zoo/animal conservation article(s). nielspeterqm (talk) 20:41, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Northern Antarctica (talk) Previously known as AutomaticStrikeout 21:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to the news coverage of this event. Simonfreeman (talk) 02:55, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, don't delete. Well written and important enough to be in Wikipedia. - Sidelight 12 ^Talk 03:36, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If we have this as a stand alone article, it will constantly get challenged. All of the facts here are important, and my goal is to preserve it. As time goes on, there will be less coverage to add to this article. ~~Marius spent his whole life in Copenhagen school, so this article could be merged there.~~ An article about European zoos or zoo practices would be better, but the grouping of ideas could be considered original research unless enough sources and work is added. There can be a problem whichever way this is decided. - Sidelight 12 ^Talk 20:47, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Event received more coverage, about a larger EAZA issue. - Sidelight 12 ^Talk23:06, February 13, 2014

Keep Surely the news coverage makes this notable without a doubt! Contact Basemetal here 05:07, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a notable case. --K0zka (talk) 07:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A separate article looks like the best way to ensure that the information remains in Wikipedia. The relevant section in the Copenhagen Zoo article already looks like the issue might end up dominating that article possibly leading to calls for cutting on grounds of recentism. This event may well be cited in the future when the issues around the existence of zoos are raised which would disprove claims that this is solely news. The article can be an article for deletion candidate again in a few years if this proves not to be the case. Philip Cross (talk) 10:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very important case on the cruelty of animals in some Zoos. Hetsar (talk) 19:02, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the evidence of "cruelty"? The giraffe was killed by stunning with a bolt gun. No evidence of any pain or suffering. WWGB (talk) 13:15, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - we now have a second giraffe called Marius, also in Denmark. Giant Snowman 13:03, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Similarly to the Séralini affair. This is a controversy with encyclopedic worth. A merge with the Kopenhagen Zoo is not preferred by the size of the article and given that the scope of the affair is wider than just this Zoo. Timelezz (talk) 16:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The continuing press coverage makes this pretty clearly notable. As such, I struck my AFD statement and my initial !vote. I'd appreciate someone letting me know if I messed up doing so. Pak aran 17:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Copenhagen Zoo. Everyone loves fluffy animals, but it doesn't outweigh the fact that the animal is a WP:VICTIM. As such, content should be merged into the parent article which in this case is the zoo. Also, this need for a seperate article appears to be attracting more attention because of recentism. Valuable content, just not sufficient enough to demonstrate timeless or long term notability. I'll even complete the merge myself if someone {{ping}}s me when this closes --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 17:52, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please note that WP:VICTIM is a section within Wikipedia:Notability (people) - Marius was a giraffe, not a person.__DrChrissy (talk) 22:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It passes Wikipedia:Notability (people) anyway, because it is a well-documented historic event, Wikipedia:Notability (events) that brought light on EAZA practice, and it is a first public zoo demonstration. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 23:06, February 13, 2014
  - I reference WP:VICTIM and WP:BIO because the fundamental criteria remains the same; other than being killed, what makes the article subject notable? Is it the case that the animal has received significant coverage, or is it the event? To make an analogy, we have an article called Pan Am Flight 1104, but we do not have an article called Philippine Clipper (it's a redirect to Pan Am Flight 1104). Although the plane itself is referenced by name in sources, it is not notable outside the event in question. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 01:50, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Good point, so perhaps the page should be renamed Killing of Marius (giraffe) as suggested above? The Whispering Wind (talk) 02:14, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - A point I made on the main Talk page. There are several articles about the culling of a single animal which have the name of the animal as the title - see Topsy (elephant), Mary (elephant), Chunee. These animals appear not to have been notable before their being killed - it was the killing and events immediately before and after the cull that made it notable. I totally agree there could/should be an article on Culling in zoos, but I believe the issues here are so different that it deserves to be its own article.__DrChrissy (talk) 21:16, 13 February 2014 (UTC)__DrChrissy (talk) 02:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        I see your point, and a cursory reading of WP:EVENT shows us that this event has seen international coverage and is "very likely to be notable". However, the question as to wither the impact will be WP:LASTING, or recieve WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE remains to be seen. Until then, it would be most suitable as part of the Zoo article. In the cases of the three other articles you've shown, they too would be suitable for a content merge (to where would be determined), for the same reasons as this article.--Nick Penguin_(contribs) 05:13, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        This doesn't meet WP:VICTIM because no crime was committed. Erasmussen (talk) 06:11, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Its an attempt at an invalid technicality. In Hitler's time, Nazi Germany didn't commit crimes (under their own laws). Mao wasn't a criminal, only because he was his own government. Zimmerman was found innocent, so does this mean WP:Crime doesn't apply to him? Kuala Lumpur or any other organization can label someone as a criminal, even if their own governments wont. Marius is still a victim, whether or not any government dictates it as a crime. - Sidelight 12 ^Talk 06:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, Godwin's Law. Gotta love it! WWGB (talk) 10:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Not Putin. Ramzan Kadirov: [52]. --Зейнал Вазимовский (talk) 18:12, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Marius is a part of history. Allow him to have this educational place. My niece is in middle school and is doing a history report on this giraffe and his plight. Her first stop was this site for information. Why delete this over opinion on whether or not the giraffe should die. He is a part of history...and he needs his place of reference.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.118.128.25 (talk • contribs)

— 207.118.128.25 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep: Don't cull Marius. Oncenawhile (talk) 15:06, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Too late for him. András Dutkó (talk) 22:28, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's an important story and should stand alone. It has made a lot of people aware of what actually happens to 'surplus' animals in zoos around the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michelle9983 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— Michelle9983 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep. This tragic case has been reported fairly extensively around the world and has done a great deal to raise awareness about zoo "culling" practices. Everyking (talk) 21:43, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:GNG. The story has moved on from being a news event and has provoked a worldwide debate on whether culling is the best approach to manage genetic issues in such animals. A merge to Copenhagen Zoo would be a sub-optimal action since even the present content is disproportionate to the balance of that article. Further, broadening this page may be a valid future action. The Whispering Wind (talk) 23:08, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is arguable that the subject here is a mere news event, but it has raised serious issues about zoo ethics that may have a lasting impact. In any case, the subject is, as it should be, covered in a more condensed form at the Copenhagen Zoo article, so if consensus eventually turns out to be against a separate article on the giraffe, there should be a redirect rather than a deletion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 00:00, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This whole arguement about whether an article is "just" news is so nebulous and open to interpretation. As an English person not particularly interested in ball-games, I struggle to understand why Super Bowl XLVIII exists, let alone without any comment regarding it being "just" news. It clearly is news, and debate about it will clearly dissipate with time (if there IS any debate). Perhaps I should label Super Bowl XLVIII for deletion and stand back and watch the fury that would be sure to arise.__DrChrissy (talk) 00:41, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Analysis: Right now we have about an even split that is 29-27 in favor of retaining the article out of a total 56 votes/positions cast. So, some editors will surely be angry either way this one goes. I said all redirect/merge or deletes in the deletion category, and all keeps/weak keeps put in the keeping category.HotHat (talk) 05:27, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't work like that. A merge vote is not a delete vote. - Sidelight 12 ^Talk 09:18, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At least ten "keep" !votes have come from single-purpose accounts (new editors and possibly repeat !voters) which significantly weakens the "keep" statistic. WWGB (talk) 13:01, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of legitimate new voters, drawn in by the delete discussion, who are regular readers of Wikipedia. These do not weaken the keep count. It's up to the admin to determine repeat votes. - Sidelight 12 ^Talk 02:14, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As it reads "Consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments." - Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_an_AfD_discussion_is_closed Timelezz (talk) 20:41, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is an estimate of 1 potential duplicate vote found. - Sidelight 12 ^Talk 06:07, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable. People will see references to the killing/culling of Marius and want to look it up. There is enough to say about this event to warrant its own article - though a mention in one or two broader-topic articles would probably be appropriate, too. As for naming: usual practice is to name this kind of story after the event - though it is by no means mandatory. Personally, I see no benefit whatever in lengthening the name to "Killing/Culling of" and so, as a lover of concision, I oppose that. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:52, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Massive media coverage, departure point for many discussions on an international level, also in-depth comments, and likely to influence looks on zoo policies and ethics in the future, as a reference point. The interest in this subject goes way beyond media coverage in the US, UK and Denmark, and it is good to have an international, updated reference article available Joen Elmbak (talk) 09:12, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— Joen Elmbak (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep. Worldwide notability. Abundant references, and very many readers are likely to come here to find out about this giraffe, so it doesn't make sense to delete. 86.25.23.3 (talk) 15:54, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— 86.25.23.3 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

RUBBISH!!! I edit extensively, but I do it as an IP without an account. So stop your unwarranted inferences. And don't label me as an SPA, and don't lecture me about creating an account - in case you were thinking of doing so! 86.31.7.99 (talk) 12:04, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read Wikipedia:Single-purpose account which empowers me to make such an edit. The tag fits, wear it. WWGB (talk) 12:18, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read it yourself. Especially the first two bullet points. 86.31.7.99 (talk) 12:21, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please hold your horses. You work from an IP-address which are not necessarily fixed. If (or rather 'when') your Internet Provider gave you a different IP, Wikipedia has no means to bind your previous and your new IP address. That's why most people create an account. Timelezz (talk) 20:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Makes little difference, there was only one estimated duplicate vote out of over 50 votes. It's conceivable that many people here are regular readers who acted on the delete template. They are as much a part of Wikipedia as regular contributors. - Sidelight 12 ^Talk 06:07, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since the votes tally was stated, there have been 5 single action registered editors vote and 5 IP address only votes placed. For someone new to Wikipedia to find the AFD page is quite impressive, but to only register to place a vote here seems suspicious, regardless of the way they voted - Just saying! Scaredmo (talk) 01:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article is notable and represents a greater problem. Marius is a symbol for a cause and isn't the first such symbol to be on Wikipedia. Gurluas (talk) 16:04, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This has been a major worldwide story, and people need Wikipedia to represent the truth. The Marius story is of great importance regarding the treatment of animals in captivity, it should be made available for public knowledge and not deleted from history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katepilla55 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 15 February 2014‎

— Katepilla55 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

KEEP!!! why do so many people want it deleted, out of all the thousands of Wikipedia articles there are? Why are they so afraid that people will read it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.29.186.228 (talk) 01:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— 92.29.186.228 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep I don't understand why wikipedia has nominated this article for deletion. There are plenty of wikipedia pages on murder victims etc. I don't see the difference between this and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Florida_Qur%27an-burning_controversy An incident that gratuitously profoundly offended millions of people around the world, attracting a very high level of worldwide media coverage. I don't think I'll forget about this incident for a very long time and I'm sure there's thousands of other people that feel the same.77.102.156.95 (talk) 03:58, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— 77.102.156.95 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep - or merge eventually; time will tell how much attention this story deserves. Right now it is a major news story; we don't yet know its repercussions. It doesn't really matter if Marius himself never did anything notable, or if the culling was an entirely trivial matter; the real story is the public's reaction, which is unusual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SkaraB (talk • contribs) 09:02, 16 February 2014‎
Delete - It is very probable that the neutrality of the article can not be maintained or will be contested continually. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pankow45 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— Pankow45 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep or merge with an appropriate article such as Copenhagen Zoo. Maybe rename per all the "Notoriety of person Foo" articles. High amount of news coverage meets GNG, this is a unique situation, not just an ordinary day behind the scenes at a zoo. The fact that it is controversial here (per above) is itself evidence of notability. Montanabw^(talk) 19:14, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or, preferrably, merge with Copenhagen Zoo. This content is not superfluous for an encyclopedia in the context of the Copenhagen Zoo, as it has been the event which has brought that particular zoo into the public consciousness. I doubt that most people will forget this context in which they first heard of the Copenhagen Zoo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.206.114.4 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 16 February 2014‎

— 162.206.114.4 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep - Marius has generated wide media attention around the world, and attention from animal rights activists, and is more than just a news article. This is notable, and will likely be so for a long time. Well-written article that should definitely be kept.Q6637p (talk) 22:25, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article is clearly notable enough to warrant it's own separate Wikipedia entry due to the amount of press coverage alone Mr.Television (talk) 07:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge but deletion is not actually an option as the reliable coverage about the subject is really massive. Cavarrone 10:12, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are too many errors in the article for it to be here. There are also cultural differences that are not highlighted enough. Martin_nielsen 21:26, 17 February 2014 (CET)

— Martin_nielsen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

So you improve it, you don't delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.6.11.21 (talk) 08:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article is very well-sourced and there is extensive and healthy debate on the Talk pages. You can not just claim 'errors' and expect that others see you as an authority for no reason. If there are errors, engage, edit, and source it well. We've seen you pushing that Marius was 2 years old, based on just some reports, while almost all news coverage says 18 months. We've reverted that, and now you opt to delete the whole article. Quite pathetic. Timelezz (talk) 16:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is essential to keep this article as it has become an important issue in Denmark and Internationally. The facts and comments from the side of Copenhagen Zoo are well published and that there is a significant number of people in Denmark and Internationally feel that the Zoo was wrong to kill Marius the Giraffe, to cut it up in front of young children and then feed it to the lions and other animals. Wikipedia is about facts and as long as this story is factual it should be here. I can see no reason why anyone would want to remove this article unless it was to sabotage and to suppress the story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scandibalt (talk • contribs) 12:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— Scandibalt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep I think the story of Marius has awakened people to what actually happens in zoos and is only the start of possible changes/reforms in the animal keeping world and as long as the content listed is all true I don't see why it should need to be removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheffieogg (talk • contribs) 22:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— Cheffieogg (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

note - regardless of the outcome of the AFD decision, it should be noted that there are two Giraffs in Denmark called Marius. On the 9th February, Copenhagen Zoo's Giraffe named Marius was culled. on the 15th February, it was announced that Jyllands Park Zoo's Giraffe also named Marius may have to be put down. Should this be the case, the notoriety of the Copenhagen Zoo would both increase as it was brought to the fore of the media, but also decrease due to possible confusion over the name - hence any article should be clear as to what it sets out. Cull of 'Marius' or culling policy of Zoo's in general? Scaredmo (talk) 01:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understood that Jylland's Marius won't be culled. The case with Copenhagen's Marius created the media attention, but Jylland's Marius can be mentioned in the same article as a spin-off. Timelezz (talk) 10:51, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Jylland Giraffe would be culled if (and when) they receive a suitable female Giraffe for breeding. The reasoning behind the cull would be that their Giraffe 'Marius' has an element of cross gene's and would cause infighting between it and the genetically superior other male giraffe in Jyllands. This case has already made mainstream news articles in Europe, America and Australia. Scaredmo (talk) 21:45, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know more than the Jylland Zoo itself? Timelezz (talk) 21:53, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The only unusual thing about the entire incident is the zoo's terrible public relations work and typical Danish stand-offishness, neither of which are any surprise. No lasting impact, doesn't pass WP:GNG; section for Copenhagen Zoo seems appropriate. Leondz (talk) 17:07, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Lasting impact is no argument. Millions of articles on Wikipedia have no lasting effect. Nor I think you are able to predict the future. You may have noticed that this already has made some discussion among zoos on how to go about culling, as there seem to be cultural/ethical differences between zoos. Undoubtedly this discussion will continue among zoos and breeding programmes. Though I am curious why you think it does not pass WP:GNG. After all, the culling received worldwide media attention on all continents. Timelezz (talk) 21:59, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a relatively well referenced article on a verifiable, and arguably notable topic. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 18:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Copenhagen Zoo#Giraffe controversy and merge selected content. The arguments by zoos and specialists should be preserved; politics and media responses can be thrown out. arielCo 04:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arielco (talk • contribs)
Keep. There are 55 sources to establish notability and significant coverage. Enough people followed this case in the news that it will be commonly searched for; this is not a borderline case, and I can't believe the Article was even nominated. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 06:34, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:21, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deadlock (metal band)

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

No evidence of notability. Sources fail WP:RS. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 01:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 01:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Two charting albums and several others released by some of the bigger independent labels of the genre (Lifeforce Records, Napalm Records), meeting WP:BAND criteria #2 and #5. These facts had already been stated and verified in the article at the time of your nomination, so I fail to see the issue here. --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 09:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Edit conflict with aboveWhile very little seems to have been said about this band in English media, they meet criteria #2 for WP:Band at the very least SPACKlick (talk) 13:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I respect the above argument yet one source in german does not prove nobility.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 13:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Coverage at Allmusic [53][54][55][56], PopMatters [57], and staff reviews at Sputnikmusic [58][59] and Punknews [60]; subject meets WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Gong show 20:16, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per coverage and arguments above. Cavarrone 10:21, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Bauman

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

Seems to be a non-notable lawyer, none of the sources listed indicate notability. -- JamesMoose (talk) 01:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 01:27, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 01:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete – No indication of notability. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 01:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 05:11, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SmartSE (talk) 13:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of people who disappeared mysteriously

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

This is an arbitrary list of persons who have disappeared. This article can never be complete. No encyclopedia would ever contain a list like this. It stands to assume that in the actual article of the person in question, that their "mysterious disappearance" would be included with their article. A separate article such as this is unnecessary and excessive. I also believe this classifies as "news" which to my understanding is forbidden per Wikipedia policy Corrections102 (talk) 00:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This appears to be a bad-faith nomination, because the nominator is unable to have a non-notable entry inserted into the page. Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:34, 10 February 2014 (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/2014 February 10. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 00:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a bad-faith nomination.--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 00:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Bad faith nomination from disruptive editor. See history of the nominator.--Dmol (talk) 01:23, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - The nominating editor has now been blocked. --Dmol (talk) 01:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 01:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This edit, along with this juvenile redirect and this idiocy suggests a rightfully blocked editor who is WP:NOTHERE. Nate • (chatter) 04:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep Editor has been vandalising the article, and AfDed it when vandalism was reverted. This passes WP:LISTN, and whilst it can never be complete, it should only contain items with articles, and thus notable wikipedia entries. Martin451 11:32, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Michael de Angelo. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:21, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cyr Myrddin, the Coming of Age of Merlin

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

No indication in article that subject meets the criteria at WP:NBOOKS. No significant coverage from reliable independent sources has been provided. References provided are primary sources, and a link to Amazon. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No support or Merge Notable with multiple discussions of the poem amongst other authorian lit. Plenty of sources, including: [61], [62], [63] to just note a quick Google search. Now I wouldn't mind a merge with the author page Michael_de_Angelo, but deletion is pushing it, Sadads (talk) 00:41, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the quick response. I'd concede to a merge if you know that the subject is notable. The article has had a notability cleanup tag since 2009. My larger concern is that a contributor to this article, and to the creation of a few other articles, appears to be related to Gododding Publishing. I saw two of those sources before you posted them, but they didn't appear to say anything that indicated why the subject was important. The Arthurian Encyclopedia printed a synopsis, but how does that translate to notability? Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:49, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 01:32, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 01:32, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to author's page. I tried hard to find something to show notability and I can see where the book appears to be used in some classrooms, but not enough to really show notability. Given that the author's page is such a stub and since he really only appears to have written two books he's truly known for, I think it's reasonable enough to create a section in that article for this book. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to Author There is nothing in any source I can find to show that the book meets any of the 5 notability guidleines. I think a short summary on the authors page could suffice. SPACKlick (talk) 12:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete. Literature as in science, notability evolves through discussion, shared awareness, and integral truth as a historical process. One need only read the lives of artists and scientists to understand that popularity is not the determining factor in notability. This work has proven a significant influence to other artists, including George Lucas, in the creation of Star Wars. Note descriptions of the Force in this work and Star Wars, the character of Iion in this work with Yoda, or the description of the Druidic priesthood with the Jedi knights. One wonders if the commentators on this page have read this book, and if Wikipedia rules and limitations might here be examined as to their ultimate deleterious effect. Or in this world do parallel lines never meet? And would "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" be, in 1905, less than notable? “Unanticipated novelty, the new discovery, can emerge only to the extent that his anticipations about nature and his instruments prove wrong.”

― Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 3rd Edition — Preceding unsigned comment added by Litvision (talk • contribs)

I ask that the above copypasta be disregarded as it demonstrates ignorance of what "notability" means at Wikipedia, and because consensus is determined through discussion, not quotations. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:03, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. It is likely that a part of the article is copyvio, and it is safer in this case not to keep the edit history.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:32, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kearny fire department

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

Fails to meet WP:GNG for an independent article. The appropriate information on the department is already present in Kearny, New Jersey#Fire department so a separate article full of minutiae is unnecessary to the encyclopedia. Imzadi 1979 → 00:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 01:33, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Individual fire departments are not notable unless they serve a large city or have something special about them. Dough 48 72 05:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There doesn't even appear to be local news coverage of the fire station. It isn't notable for anything in particular. The page also reads like a copy paste of excessive information. SPACKlick (talk) 12:33, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Kearny, New Jersey#Fire department. CSD A10 also applies to the article.Iniciativass (talk) 16:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of independent notability for the fire department. Most of the text is cut and pasted from http://kearnyfire.com/html/history.html and whatever useful content exists there could be used as a source in the article for the municipality. The laundry lists of firefighters and fire equipment are probably unencyclopedic, even if an article for the department itself was justified. Alansohn (talk) 16:41, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kearny, New Jersey or delete. Either is acceptable. Pretty obviously too trivial to satisfy the GNG. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:18, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Kearny, New Jersey#Fire department, per above . Not notable enough to have own page. Tinton5 (talk) 20:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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