Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 December 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Polo (talk | contribs) at 00:27, 21 December 2012 (Relisting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Revolutions). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< 13 December 15 December >

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 speedy redirect to Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy Hook Elementary Massacre

Sandy Hook Elementary Massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An article has already been created for this terrible event Mikeo34 (talk) 23:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry everyone, I accidentally put this in AfD instead of speedy deletion my mistake. Please ignore this page and I will mark it for speedy now Mikeo34 (talk) 23:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, can you please give me a link to that article then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steviedman (talk • contribs) 23:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. While the topic of defensive gun use is certainly a notable one, this is not a general article on the subject but a list of incidents. Realistically, this list should include every time it was noted by the press that anyone ever defended themselves with a firearm outside of a law enforcement or military context. This would mean documenting hundreds of thousands pf incidents over the course of the last 800 years. How to determine which incidents were legitimate self defense and which were not is not clearly defined, and of course the point is raised repeatedly that this list is unlikely to ever be anywhere near complete. While in most cases that is not really a valid argument, in this case the difference between what we have now and what it would be if it were honestly made into a real list of such incidents is a staggeringly wide gap. I find as a matter of policy-based arguments that consensus favors having an article on this subject, but this list is not that article. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of defensive gun use incidents

AfDs for this article:
List of defensive gun use incidents (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completing nomination for an IP, I am neutral. His/her rationale (originally posted on the talk page) follows:


Mark Arsten (talk) 23:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • creator keep AFD was just completed 4 months ago. WP:NOTESAL The overall topic is discussed in numerous studies, books and articles, and far surpasses any notability bar. Incomplete lists are very common in wikipedia, we have a template specifically to address the issues inherent with them. That this is one such list is not a reason to delete. The criteria for inclusion in the list are neutral, and in close alignment with the criteria used by the various studies and books on the topic. that individual entries are not notable is again an explicitly intended use of lists on wikipedia per WP:CSC Gaijin42 (talk) 23:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. List of non-notable news events that do not become notable by virtue of being glued together. I would also be opposed, in any case, to the existence of such a list without some semblance of a main article, although it is possible that one could be written. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The overall topic is notable, and per Wikipedia:CSC#Common_selection_criteria lists of non notable individual items are specifically a valid list selection criteria. A main article is certainly a good idea. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 08:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 08:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This list is restricted to ones that have recieved reliable coverage, which is a significantly smaller subset. Every entry here has at least one referene, many have more, and thoe ones that only have one ref, in many cases there were more refs available, but were not included due to trying not to WP:OVERLINK
If guncite is correct and 1 out of 100 of those cases receive coverage, we should have 100,000 entries on this list from the 20th century alone. I think we're going to need a bigger boat. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An article describing a notable POV does not itself violate NPOV. The POV issue is allowing List_of_murders,List_of_rampage_killers,List_of_familicides but not a single list showing the other side. from Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ The NPOV policy does forbid the inclusion of editorial bias, but does not forbid properly sourced bias. Without the inclusion and documentation of bias in the real world, many of our articles would fail to document the sum total of human knowledge, and would be rather "blah" reading, devoid of much meaningful and interesting content. also see WP:OUTRAGE Gaijin42 (talk) 15:05, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration.
  • Keep This is exactly the sort of information Wikipedia is best for collecting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.110.65 (talk) 18:24, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It would be better to have an article on defensive gun use in general, which Wikipedia does not seem to have. Even the lowest estimates suggest tens of thousands of defensive gun use incidents per year in the United States alone, and other estimates suggest over 2 million such incidents per year in the United States. (And many more such incidents may occur in other countries, including some countries which have few editors of the English Wikipedia or media sources available online in English.) Furthermore, I don't know how we can determine which defensive gun use incidents are notable enough to justify maintaining a list of only the "notable" ones. For some of the incidents listed here, none of the participants' names are mentioned either here or in the cited source. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:36, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The defensive gun use article is needed, agreed. I've done my best to include non-US incidents, but as gun laws generally more restrictive elsewhere, they are hard to find - plus ones that aren't in English are obviously much harder to find for US people. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:53, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree that it would be better to have an article, so I was WP:BOLD and created one. I get the impression that some of the people who want to keep the list are doing so because they think the subject is a good idea, and therefore want to keep the list. Wrs1864 (talk) 20:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I have notified all of those that commented on the previous AFD of this discussion (except for pbp as he is already involved here), as well as those who have edited the article in question. I believe this does not violate WP:CANVASS as I notified all, regardless of they way they !voted, but I am putting it here just to avoid confusion etc. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:51, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Gaijin invited me to comment here as a past editor of the article (I corrected a few typos with AWB). It appears to me a long list of miscellaneous, nonnotable events, covered under WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The current form of the list also seems designed as a long pamphlet for gun rights. We don't have List of gun killings by criminals or List of accidental shootings of children by gunowners.
Defensive gun use is a widely discussed and debated topic, and it would be interesting to have an overview of the topic summarizing research and opinions from all sides. This list has been specifically designed to not be that overview, including only the most positive incidents and views: "Roberts was quoted as saying "It's not [politically correct] to run around in public wielding a handgun, but it's sometimes necessary," he said. "And [it's] our moral responsibility — not just [that of] the police — [to] defend other lives when we can". If kept, I suggest moving to simply List of gun use incidents to make sure Wikipedia is covering all varieties of gun use, rather than those that fit a particular legislative agenda.
As a side note, I'm also not fond of the strategy of giving an AfD a few days, and then when seeing that the vote is turning against it, making a transparent attempt to recruit new voters from presumed sympathetic pools. Unfortunately, it'll probably work here, but such is Wikipedia. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I specifically invited quite a few people who voted delete the previous AFD, so I think your accusation is misplaced. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, and I bet the fact that there were more keeps than deletes didn't influence your thinking at all. But I don't want to get sidetracked here; I agree your actions were within policy. The main point I want to emphasize here is that it's silly to have a list of incidents like "Jane Gunowner scared off a masturbator with a handgun" while we would never allow a worldwide list of handgun murders. It's indiscriminate, and it's POV. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When you have an AFD so soon, it makes sense to tell all those before about it. Wouldn't be fair otherwise. We don't want people to keep nominating the same article time and time again, until they get what they want, that gaming the system. Who is this IP address really? Seems odd for a new user to be acting this way. [1] Dream Focus 16:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The waiting two days until the first round of votes were in was what struck me--that and also notifying all past contributors to the article. Willing to agree to disagree, though. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator here. Since my anonymous edit seems to have caused concerned, I went through the effort of digging out my password and logging in. Wrs1864 (talk) 20:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is specific criteria for the list. The nominator claims it violates POV, when obviously it does not, and you can not delete list articles simply because they are incomplete. And there are references to the things listed, and some of the incidents even have their own Wikipedia article. This sort of thing does get ample coverage. Dream Focus 16:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Defensive gun use is a widely studied, although politically charged, topic and the literature reflects this. Creating a list of notable incidents on a notable topic does not violate any Wikipedia policies, and the re-nomination by an anon suggests a timing choice related to recent U.S. events. Having said that, I would break the list up differently, but that's a matter for regular editing, not a deletion discussion. Jclemens (talk) 16:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Tone's always tricky online, so please read this question in a curious voice rather than an argumentative one: if this is ultimately kept, would the "Keep" votes here also support a referenced List of accidental shootings, List of armed robberies, and List of gun murders? What bothers me most here is that we're cataloguing one type of gun incident that's not more obviously notable than any other, save that it supports a specific POV; almost all murders, for example, will have received more coverage than a homeowner chasing off a burglar by firing a handgun (this list's first item). I'd be willing to give a start to the above lists if other editors wouldn't mind and wouldn't consider it WP:POINT; these seem like the kind of lists that once started, will rapidly be expanded by other editors. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, those list would all be fine. You shouldn't try to delete something because something else doesn't exist. Instead why not go and create these other articles? Dream Focus 17:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If the community consensus is that this is a useful level of detail for Wikipedia, even if I don't quite agree, I'll be glad to pitch in. I think it'd be better to hold off until this AfD is resolved, though. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The topic of "defensive gun use" is certainly notable, but this looks more like a small sublist of a very large group of "incidents" which should be dealt with in brief in an article on the topic, rather than as a list here. Collect (talk) 17:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • TCAICANTBCRA- Why does this need to be a dispute between delete and keep? Defensive gun use is a worthy topic to be discussed on this encyclopedia. No dispute about that. But the current content is embarrassing rubbish; why does it need to be a list of incidents without context or explanation? If I'm looking up defensive gun use I expectto find relevant information like the arguments for and against allowing guns for home protection and stuff like that. Not 50kb of "Mrs. Jones shot a deviant spying on her in the shower. Mr. Zhang mistook his son's snowman for an intruder and blew its carrot off." The current article is crap and needs to be changed right away. This implies keeping the concept of the article but deleteing the bulk of the current content. Reyk YO! 22:31, 16 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]
What does that acronym mean? Gaijin42 (talk) 20:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP This is useful if beefed up. It may be the only list of verifiable uses of guns for self defence. It is at least useful to describe how guns are actually used for self defence. I would suggest that a section on estimates of defensive gun use, methodologies for estimating defensive gun use, and variability in the estimates of gun use for self defence would be helpful.StopYourBull (talk) 01:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Add studies on relevant estimates of DGU's, be patient, and watch the list grow. It will be at the top of a Google search in no time. This is important information that needs to be compiled somewhere. There is no POV support. That's like saying that a list of Daily Car Uses somehow has a POV in support of access to cars (every "honest" person knows they are only used by drunks to kill people). I think the OP is the one with a POV issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff Chapin (talk • contribs) 04:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC) — username (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • KEEP As said this list may be the only list of verifiable uses of guns for self defense. After reading the list it is more clear to me now that there are occasions where self defense requires the use of a gun and that using a gun for self defense is at sometimes a necessary evil. 71.100.18.203 (talk) 06:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - all "defensive gun use" incidents are not notable. This list in US focused, and if we included incidents globally it would become extremely long and uninteresting. Claritas § 11:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:INDISCRIMINATE does not apply. In the worst case, it should be rewritten as Defensive gun use. AFD is WP:NOTCLEANUP. CallawayRox (talk) 18:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC) Still applies. CallawayRox (talk) 18:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing how NOTCLEANUP is relevant here pbp 20:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We don't delete savable content, so we shouldn't be at AFD. CallawayRox (talk) 21:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Although I am a huge Second Amendment supporter, this list is more of a newspaper than an article and we know that Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. These are merely random events thown onto a list with a questionable inclusion criteria. A brief glance also shows some BLP concerns when we start making statements like "John Doe broke into a house and Steve Homeowner used a firearm...." Niteshift36 (talk) 19:00, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The criteria for inclusion closely match the criteria used by the various studies of defensive gun use (See the prior AFD for specific quotes from the studies to back this up). If consensus does say that the sourced name mentions are a BLP issue, that is a simple cleanup, and not delete-worthy. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the non-notable people's names aren't really that relevant, wouldn't it be more prudent for you to simply remove them all, rather than add that to the list of reasons why this article should be deleted? Niteshift36 (talk) 20:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely see the argument. I had been including them for two reasons - 1) so searches on those names might link to us (Which in retrospect I do admin could cause BLP issues) 2) So that readers already at the article would have some search terms for use for finding additional sources Gaijin42 (talk) 20:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm having difficulty believing that 95% of those names are likely search terms. As for the additinal source claim: If it is in the article, it should already have a source. Said source will contain the names if people want to search further. Everything doesn't belong in the article.Niteshift36 (talk) 05:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I realize that everyone says this, but I would like to state for the record that I have NOT WP:CANVASSED as implied by Collect, and directly accused by PBP. I notified the editors of the article, and of the previous AFD and said so on this very page. I did not make any posts or requests at any other location. I will also notice that this pendulum swings both ways, and the nominator as well as several of the delete votes are anonymous IPs with not much edit history. I think in both cases the result is the increased scrutiny of gun related topics in the context of the Newtown school tragedy. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • One IP address said delete, one IP address said keep, and then two other "keeps" had few edits, one of them posting in and about gun related topics starting back in August though, so I doubt he'd be someone's puppet. [2] Dream Focus 21:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral changed to userfy allow development of either a non-list article, or a list article with a manageable criteria - I have some serious practical concerns about how you keep a list like this balanced, not indiscriminate, and together; many of the incidents are notable only in aggreggate, not as individual events. However, the NPOV claims are misplaced. I would prefer a merge but we don't have anything on this topic it would appear (I haven't found anything on point). Defensive firearm use or something similar would be a good umbrella topic. The criteria needs to be tightened and the focus changed. We don't have a list for run-of-the-mill crimes because any list like that would always be not only incomplete, but not even a shadow of complete. This criteria is similar as it stands now. There is a place for a list similar to this, but the current format bothers me enough to change to a neutral stance. Shadowjams (talk) 20:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agreed that many (if not most) of the incidents would fail GNG on their own. However, this situation is explicitly contemplated by the list MOS : [Wikipedia:CSC#Common_selection_criteria]]. Do you have any narrowing criteria you think should be added? I can think of many that would probably make the article more interesting, but they would also tend to introduce more POV over what is a legitimate defensive use. Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles Gaijin42 (talk) 20:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not so much that entries fail GNG, which is of course what lists are sometimes good at fixing, but it's that just as a list of crimes with a firearm (or whatever criteria), no practical wikilist could come close to being even a representative list. For instance, the robbery criteria alone is something that's regularly in the papers, and that's just from what I hear in my local area. Of course if you removed that specific criteria, then it becomes an odd list though. Nationwide, over the 100 year+ span the list already considers, I can't imagine how a list like this could even be representative. Perhaps I'm overestimating the number of incidents this would apply to, and I'm aware it need not be comprenhensive, but it at least needs to give some sense of scale. That's my main concern, and why I think an article addressing the topic, rather than a list, is the way to go.
A list limited to mass murder incidents, for instance, would be much more manageable. A list limited to murders might be possible too, but I suspect even that may be overly ambitious. Shadowjams (talk) 20:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you either misread the criteria or are making an argument where you missed a step in your argument. This is not an article about crimes, but an article about where people defended themselves from crimes. Are you saying the list should be limited to only defensive incidents where they defended themselves from murder? That seems a tough article, as if they were successful it would not actually be a murder, and if they were not, then they didn't manage to defend themselves at all? Or are you just comparing this article to a hypothetical "list of murders" article? If the later, certainly in both cases we would only be able to document a subset of incidents (even a subset of well referenced incidents). However I personally see a value difference in the two articles (which is a POV I suppose), in that nobody denies the existence of murder and that incidents happen quite often - but many people are not aware of or ignore the concept of DGU, and therefore documenting and discussing them (of course in an NPOV manner) is a valuable effort. I certainly admit that that is a POV, but I do not think we have any policy which says articles which neutrally present a POV are disallowed (and in fact we have policies to the contrary) Gaijin42 (talk) 23:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately Gaijin you have completely misread my comment. No, i'm not confused about your criteria, or the purpose of the article. My point is that your criteria encompasses so many incidents the list will never be representative. I make an analogy to a hypothetical List of crimes committed with firearms, which would be equally unmanageable. And before you say that we don't need "completeness" or that AfD is not cleanup, I'm aware of both of those points. It's not completeness we need, but a list that has 5% of the potential entries (and I fear this would always have far less) is problematic.
I suggest a more limited criteria as a solution. This would address most of my issues. Limiting the list to a homicide criteria is one option. And your concern about inchoate offenses is silly, you should easily understand this would include those as well (current criteria doesn't take attempts into account, but would clearly cover them as well; that seems quite obvious to me).
The tldr version is, the list criteria lends itself to such an expansive number of entries that are so common even cursory representative coverage would be unmanageable. Shadowjams (talk) 01:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
how would one know what intended (or incidental) crime would have occurred had the DGU not happened? In any robbery/break in murder is a possible result? Are you saying we should limit the list to only cases where someone was sucessfully greivously assaulted/killed and then a later DGu occurred limiting it? Or where a credible death threat was made? I could see restricting to serious assault, murder etc (definitely exclude the "masturbate" incident for example, but i think any break in where a threat was made, or where the perp was armed would be viable too. Also, I think any incident involving a child, or elderly person as the gun user is more notable, as even an unarmed assailant is a significant threat to them. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed criteria change : Add a criteria that one of the following must be included : 1) Rape, assault, murder, or credible threat (per RS?) thereof. OR 2) any crime involving armed perp 3) or child (<18) or senior (>65). This would exclude the masturbation event, and simple breaking and entering incidents where an unarmed (or not known to be armed) perp was shot/fled/etc without engaging the user (unless a child/senior). Gaijin42 (talk) 02:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We're adding to the WP:OR criteria now? How about incidents that occurred on a weekday and involved a gun whose average retail price is under $250 (before taxes)? It seems you are trying to fix the OR problem with more OR. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:55, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Every element (of any list) does not need to be included. It is not OR to say "We are filtering the incident we choose to display", the same as we filter which quotes from notable people we choose to include, which pictures we choose to display, etc. As long as that filtering is done in a neutral way. If it makes you feel better, we can say this is "forming consensus on editorial discretion" rather than a formal change of the criteria. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We are creating the topic out of thin air. We can create countless meaningless "List of..." articles this way: List of lollipop flavors, List of left handed people born on Wednesdays, List of prices charged by barbers in Chicago on March 17, 1984, etc. The topic is not "defensive gun use incidents", the topic is "defensive gun use incidents where the gun user was not a cop or member of the military and was not convicted of a crime for using the gun to ... whatever". The inclusion criteria -- a.k.a. the "topic" of this list -- is currently something a Wikipedia editor (or group of editors) dreamed up. It cannot possibly be notable. Additionally, the list is alleged to be huge, supposedly generating thousands of possible candidates each year in the U.S. alone. That this is limited by the wishy-washy "where reliable sources can verify the basic facts of the incident" criterion (basically: the facts must be verifiable...). Getting back to a similar article that should exist if this one does: There are roughly 300 gun homicides in Philadelphia each year. All of them are detailed in the Philadelphia Inquirer (with an annual article linking to each one on a handy-dandy map). That article will add thousands of new entries each year, without question. That (as is alleged here) most of the possible members of this OR category are unreported brings us back to a guess, discussed above: If 1% of them are reported, that's 1,000 new entries each year. 100,000 from the U.S. and 20th century alone. Heck, let's start an exhaustive list of the residents of some smallish town somewhere. We can find a reliable source, the criteria wouldn't be OR (unlike this one) and the list would be just as "encyclopedic" as this one. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nom rationale is nonsense. That the list is not complete is a very silly deletion rationale, also AfD is not for cleanup. The topic the list is about is clearly notable, entries are referenced and there are well defined inclusion criteria. All in all not only a list compliant to policies, but a good one at that. --Cyclopiatalk 21:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This needs much more expansion. I have added an 1853 event where a slave attacking an overseer was killed in self-defense, and an 1928 event, where a husband killed his wife's lover in self defense when he walking in on the wife and the lover. There are many many incidents like this that should be added to this article. The number of times slave owners were saved from violent acts by defensive gun use alone are immense! I am very concerned that article as it now is very narrow, just trying to include defensive gun use situations under 2012 standard of morality. The fact is that defensive gun use to enforce legal acts now thought horrible goes back to the invention of firearms, and should not be omitted.--Milowent • hasspoken 22:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete one of the least compelling arguments from the "keep" side is "this might be the only list of its kind". That's the definition of original research, which is what Wikipedia is not. It's not our job to compile the first ever list of defensive gun incidents. Let alone a list that is impossible (not hard -- literally impossible) to populate with any verifiability and accuracy. Just look at the mess of the inclusion criteria. "Yes this, except when it's that, except when this or that." Particularly the part about how we have to go into the legal system to decide whether an act of gun violence was an act of self-defense, or an act of murder. It's as impossible to maintain as "list of motor vehicle accidents" or "list of people who have slipped and fallen on icy sidewalks". This AFD has become a magnet for canvassing by the pro-gun lobby. But so I'm not accused of being a shill for the other side, I will also add this: there IS an encyclopedic topic to be made about defensive gun use, and the number of lives saved by defense. But the way to do that is to write an article with statistics, instead of trying to make it into a list of individual anecdotes. For a phenomenon of this frequency, statistical data would be the only accurate way to represent it. Anecdotes are highly prone to undue weight (in favor or opposed). So in the alternative to deletion, I would support a wholesale rewrite. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are asking for modification of inclusion criteria. Which is good, but it's not a deletion ratonale: AfD is not cleanup; what you ask can be dealt with editing, not deletion, thus it is an invalid rationale, per deletion policy. --Cyclopiatalk 10:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If 2 possible people is "A magnet for canvassing by the pro-gun lobby", that's got to be about the weakest lobby in the universe. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question how incomplete of a list is this? Right now, there are about 30 entries for 2012. If this was mostly a complete list, as per the current criteria, would there be 300? 3,000? 300,000? I would say that if there were only 300, it might be a stretch to maintain, but my impression is that is much more likely to 300,000 than 300. Wrs1864 (talk) 20:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Estimates of DGU (depending on definition and survey method) vary from between tens of thousands, to many hundreds of thousands, however under no circumstance would the list be able to include even a small percentage; because only a small percentage of those are reported on, and therefore WP:VERIFIABLE. The number that is reported on is orders of magnitude smaller (by my own count, or that of websites which are compiling similar lists), and serves as a first-level notability filter. Reported on is in the low hundreds with 0-5 per week maybe and of those some do not pass our current criteria, and less would bass the proposed criteria. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per JClement's sound analysis, a very poor deletion rationale, being an incomplete list is not a reason for deleting anything, WP has no deadline and the article's subject is obviously notable, sourcable and expandable. Cavarrone (talk) 05:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    As said below, it has less than 100 entries right now. It is estimated there are 10s of thousands of such incidents in the U.S. each year. This list is already trying to cover as far back as the early 1900s. Even if those numbers are limited to those reported on, we're talking hundreds of listings per year. Incomplete is not the reason; completely unmanageable is. Shadowjams (talk) 00:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I see your point, however when and if the list will became too long we could spin out under more specific criteria. Or we can establish, just now, more strict inclusion criteria. But, per se, ITSTOOLONG is not a valid reason to delete a notable topic. Cavarrone (talk) 11:00, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a random selection of incidents. Next: List of gun suicides, List of automobile accidents, List of people interviewed for person on the street segments in local news, etc. Yes, we have List of people from New York City and such, but they are not a random selection of those people, they are lists of the notable (blue linked) people. This list has an extensive set of criteria for inclusion that seem to have been created by the editor. For instance: why exclude illegal guns used for self-defense? Based on the criteria outlined, the article title should be something along the lines of [[List of defensive gun use incidents by civilians excluding police, military or paid armed security while acting in the line of duty, defensive uses during the commission of a crime, illegally owned guns, voluntary participants in violence but possibly including cases where the user claimed self-defense and charges were filed but later dropped]]. Given that the mirror image of this coat rack would also seem to be notable, we would likely have to create List of offensive gun use incidents, a list that would grow by thousands annually (assuming most murders hit the newspapers). Pointless. - SummerPhD (talk) 06:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are asking for modification of inclusion criteria. Which is good, but it's not a deletion ratonale: AfD is not cleanup; what you ask can be dealt with editing, not deletion, thus it is an invalid rationale, per deletion policy. --Cyclopiatalk 10:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let me clarify. I am not asking for modification of the inclusion criteria, I am saying there is no possible set of inclusion criteria that is not original research and does not generate a random selection of trivial news items. That we can generate a set of inclusion criteria for List of rainy Mondays in London does not imply we should. (That would be another random selection of trivial news items of no value. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are misquoting the criteria. There is no restriction in the criteria of illegal guns used for self defense. the only restriction in that vein is that criminals in the act of ocmmiting a crime should not be included, which is a major component of most Castle laws Gaijin42 (talk) 15:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is moot. The criteria are still OR. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I find it hard to believe that this is a true representative list as it shows no case where the gun owner shot a bystander by accident. It is also prejudicial as it does not show the events where there was a gun owner present who couldn't do anything without hitting a bystander. This only shows GDU in a 100% positive light and is obviously created for an agenda. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 07:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are asking for reasonable cleanup. AfD is not cleanup however: what you ask can be dealt with editing, not deletion, thus it is an invalid rationale, per deletion policy. --Cyclopiatalk 10:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We do not include accidental shootings, because that is a different topic. We also don't include cases of consensual relationships in the list of rapes. Is that a POV issue? An individual article does not need to represent all facets of a topic, if it is about a specific facet. The hypothetical example you propose is a worthy topic on its own though. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, assuming the existence of a list of rapes, we absolutely would include cases of "consensual relationships" (because if one doesn't consent to sex, it's still rape, even if one is married or in a relationship). What we wouldn't include = instances of consensual sex. It may seem like splitting hairs, but it's about the basic definition of the list inclusion criteria. Take another look at what LegoTech is saying: that many instances of gun use which were intended for the defense of self or another, and which therefore are "defensive gun use incidents," didn't have the intended result of deterring an attacker while keeping non-attackers safe. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm staying with delete. Original research as the choice was made to include off duty cops as if they put their training and experience in their locker along with the uniform. Its a random set of incidents that match the point the creator is trying to prove. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 06:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The police exclusion is not WP:OR if you read the criteria from the studies I copied below, they specifically exclude "Police work". I reworded the criteria to be clear as they meant (based on other content of those studies) but it is most definitely NOT wp:OR Gaijin42 (talk) 14:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This feels like a deletion that is politically motivated. I'm pro gun control, but this article is very relevant. This is a topic that is discussed "in numerous studies, books and articles, and far surpasses any notability bar. Incomplete lists areery common in wikipedia, we have a template specifically to address the issues inherent with them." I agree completely with a previous contributor on this issue of deletion. Johnandrus (talk) 15:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you there seems to be some political motivation in some rare cases, but I'm a little confused as to why. More to the point, the number of cases that fit on here is enormous. The low end estimates of defensive gun uses is over 50,000. The high end estimates are much more. That's per year, and that's just in the U.S. Even if we only list those reported in the paper, that's easily in the hundreds each year, and this list is going back to the turn of the century (the last one) already! The current criteria in this article means such a list is completely unmanageable. Shadowjams (talk) 00:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


  • STRONG KEEP though i'm known as a left-winger and i'm not at all ashamed of that, i can't condone wiping away this article even though i'd prefer (just politically and personally) that it weren't here. we must at least act like WP actually is neutral. the deletion request SO reeks of POV that even i must oppose it. Cramyourspam (talk) 05:06, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So, you want to keep the article because you feel the nomination was not in good faith? You've provided no evidence of that. Please address the issues raised in the nomination. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment however, it is likely that whatever anyone says, this article will be deleted --just like that one about Forward being a historical name for socialist-associated media, which it is, being deleted as soon as president obama picked it as his 2012 campaign slogan. (of course to me there is nothing dishonorable about using a historically socialist slogan --nothing to be ashamed of!) as soon as POV obama-defenders thought it might look bad for obama to be socialist associated [why?] they got it deleted. this article will go the same way. and i will be glad --but also slightly worried that we really are making a mockery of the supposedly 'neutral' stance we supposedly take, and that we might thus someday lose some credibility. of course we editors are mostly educated, civilized, NOT right-wing knuckle-dragging types and sometimes our preferences show. of course. but we must try harder to LOOK objective. my gut tell sme that killing-off this article would do too much too soon to make us look like the enlightened partisans that most of us are. Cramyourspam (talk) 05:35, 20 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]
This is off-topic and has no place here. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ah no it isn't, mr/s i-have-a-PhD-and-want-all-to-know-it. if it weren't on the topic, i wouldn't have added it here. your quibble reeks of POV. and believe me, as a really POV person at times, i know POV when i see it. we probably agree on a lot of things, since i'm (according to critics) really obviously way out in left field. fine. i'm not going to repeat my reasons for being nervous about deleting this. they're above for all to see. cheers.Cramyourspam (talk) 05:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cramyourspam, please keep civil. --Cyclopiatalk 13:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It seems to me that it would be very desirable to have some sources that address the topic of listing past defensive gun use as a whole, rather than compiling a list of one-off news reports. As it currently stands, I think the article is verging on WP:SYN, and that is an issue that needs addressing. I do not think the "criteria" section below is an adequate remedy, since it suggests that Wikipedia editors will be judging which news reports to include based on criteria studies of defensive gun use in various—well, that's practically the definition of synthesis. (What would we say: "This incident would be considered a defensive use based on the criteria in blah, but not blah"?!) If we can find reliable secondary sources that list defensive uses of guns in the past, then we can cite those and reference the primary source literature (news reports). If we can't, then the article should probably be deleted. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:54, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Keep. Addressing the nominator's view that the article is POV, I would argue it is more POV to delete the article. The absence of the article would seem to imply a lack of defensive uses for guns. -- Jwinters | Talk 21:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, that's why I have diligently added cases of slaves being shot in self-defense, the concept of self-defense in the United States is clearly tied to the killing of many unruly slaves who seemed not to realize they were property without any rights.--Milowent • hasspoken 22:04, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

This is copied from the prior AFD. These are the quotes from several of the studies used as sources in the article thus far, and the criteria used by those studies. The studies' criteria closly match the criteria for inclusion used by the article.

*comment regarding criteria (as well as showing notability of the overall list topic) (copied on article talk) There have been several US and international studies which have done research into the occurence of defensive gun use. These various studies have used various methodologies and slightly different criteria to measure DGUs, here is a brief summary of what they measured, which can be used to judge the appropriateness of the criteria for inclusion in this article, and possible changes.

    • From http://www.saf.org/journal/11/mauserfinal.htm (reprint of Armed Self Defense: The Canadian Case, Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol 24, No 5, pp 393-406, Copyright (1996)
      • Canadian Facts, 1995 (Note, Canada, not US) : Within the past five years, have you yourself, or another member of your household used a gun, even if it was not fired, for self-rotection, or for protection of property at home, at work, or elsewhere? Please do not include military service, police work, or work as a security guard.” If the respondent nswered, “yes,” he or she was then asked, “Was this to protect against an animal or a person (or both).”
      • Center for Social and Urban Research (CSUR) 1995, at the University of Pittsburgh, surveying both US and CANADA : Aside from military service or police work, in the past five years, have you yourself, or a member of your household, used a gun for self-protection, or for protection of property at home, at work, or elsewhere, even if it wasn’t fired?” If the respondent answered, “yes,” he or she was then asked, “Was this to protect against an animal or a person (or both).
    • from http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10881&page=103 (National Academies Press)
      • NCVS (National Crime Vicimimisation Study, (administered by US Census Beurau) (see also http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/NACJD/NCVS/) : To elicit defensive gun use incidents, the survey first assesses whether the respondent has been the victim of particular classes of crime—rape, assault, burglary, personal and household larceny, or car theft—during the past six months, and then asks several follow-up questions about self-defense. In particular, victims are asked:Was there anything you did or tried to do about the incident while it was going on?Did you do anything (else) with the idea of protecting yourself or your property while the incident was going on? Responses to these follow-up probes are coded into a number of categories, including whether the respondent attacked or threatened the offender with a gun.
      • National Self Defense Survey conducted by Florida State University criminologists in 1994 : The survey, which focused on firearms use, first assessed whether the respondent used a gun defensively during the past five years, and then asked details about the incident. In particular, respondents were first asked:Within the past five years, have you yourself or another member of your household used a handgun, even if it was not fired, for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere? Please do not include military service, police work, or work as a security guard.
    • Excellent meta-study comparing many of the above studies and several others, http://home.uchicago.edu/~ludwigj/papers/JQC-CookLudwig-DefensiveGunUses-1998.pdf
      • NSPOF (National Survey of Private Ownership of Firearms, US DOJ) : Within the past 12 months, have you yourself used a gun, even if it was not fired,to protect yourself or someone else, or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere? Respondents who reported a DGU experience are then asked 30 additional questions concerning the most recent such experience. Topics covered include whether the use was against an animal or a human, the relationship between the respondent and the perpetrator, the location of the incident, the crime involved, whether the perpetrator was armed, and what the respondent did with the firearm in the incident

Gaijin42 (talk) 19:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria that you have developed for the list may be based on the above research, but it isn't close to being identical. This non-trivial criteria for inclusion is what makes it WP:OR. Developing the criteria further to keep the list from being huge just marches further along the OR path. Wrs1864 (talk) 20:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Defensive" wording is directly from reliable sources discussing the topic. Other places has less defensive gun use, so its not surprising that the article is America centric. Other places don't play gridiron football much either is that a WP:WORLDVIEW problem? Gaijin42 (talk) 15:29, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: Events should be summarized and shortened, but nevertheless, would be of high interest to readers who are knowledgeble about the subject -RoseL2P (talk) 13:55, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as violating WP:POV. What a cheerful cherry-picked list of gun brandishings. Both the list entries demonstrate and the inclusion criteria seem intended to choose incidents in which defensive gun use: 1) was successful, 2) was deemed justified, and 3) no bystanders were harmed. Out of the defensive gun uses each year in the U.S. alone (2.5 million according to pro-gun activists Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz; 108,000 in 2008 according to the FBI, each a potential entry), the list of entries (as of this date stamp) doesn't include a single case in which a bystander or other innocent was killed or injured by the defensive shooter. The list and the sources from Cato ("The bottom line is that gun owners stop a lot of criminal mayhem every year.") and the RedditDGU ("...dedicated to cataloging incidents in the United States where legally-owned guns are used to deter or stop violent crime") seem intended to promote the idea that defensive gun use is entirely a positive thing. In truth, defensive shootings are sometimes unsuccessful (Cato's Tough Target pdf, pg 3; [3], [4]), unjustified ([5], [6]) and messy ([7], [8]). This is a case of advocacy and framing the argument unfairly. Failing delete, Move to to the more accurate namespace List of defensive gun use incidents which were successful and justified. BusterD (talk) 14:25, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are making up criteria that are not part of the list. There is no "No bystanders were harmed" criteria AND no "successful" criteria. The reason such incidents are not included is... because the editors have not found any yet. I do not deny that there are cases (many cases?) when people use guns to harm people - but those aren't defensive gun uses. Make a list of "shootings where self defense claims were rejected" For example Jesus C. Gonzalez would be a great addition to such a list. "Defensive gun use" even with your hypothetical cherry picked criteria - is still a notable topic. It is discussed in many books, articles, studies. It deserves an article. Negative aspects of gun usage also deserve articles. Go make them. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:47, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Tatyana Arntgolts

The result was Keep Changing my mind with the additional sources. No other delete opinions so I'm closing this early. ThemFromSpace 19:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tatyana Arntgolts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I haven't been able to find significant coverage of her in reliable, third-party sources to meet WP:BIO, nor does it appear that she meets the additional WP:ENT guidelines.

Since Arntgolts' fanbase is in Russia, and I can't read Russian articles, I would be open to persuasion if reliable sources were found that document her achievements. ThemFromSpace 22:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 08:24, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 08:24, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus is that the current state of the article may be unsatisfactory - particularly in the color usage - but the content should be kept. Kubigula (talk) 16:38, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of online music lockers

Comparison of online music lockers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not an internet shopping guide. This sort of thing belongs at Consumer Reports' website, not Wikipedia. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 08:20, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 08:20, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 08:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 08:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, that's two keep votes that open with remarks about notability, which is not mentioned in the nomination. I know it is normal to make notability based arguments at AFD, but this is the exception to that rule. Nobody is even remotely suggesting that the three services compared are not notable. They all have their own articles and I would not even think of nominating them for deletion. What is being suggested is that having a consumer-reports style side-by-side comparison, cmplete with red and green highlights to let you know who is good and who is bad, is a violation of the idea that Wikipedia is not a shopper's guide. We might as well change the name of this article to "according to Wikipedia Google Play is awesome". Beeblebrox (talk) 20:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, so it is the colors you object to? They are used this way on many other comparison articles to indicate feature support. I couldn't find anything in the MoS about this type of article. --Pmsyyz (talk) 05:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do object to the colors, but that is something that could be fixed by editing. Why I think it should just be deleted is explained fairly clearly, with links, in the nomination. Whether there are other similar articles or not I do not think this is appropriate. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 23:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with changes - The article itself could de with being renamed to remove 'comparison' from the name. The comparison should feature as part of a greater article about the storage of music on-line. Or the article could be merged into Cloud_storage potentially with a section for types of storage (documents, files, music e.t.c) and then the comparison could remain there. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 20:36, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and discuss the title. This is a distinct category of products, and I don't think it should be merged into the very general article on cloud storage--that article would be unworkably large if it contained the details of everything that cloud storage can be used for. It might, however, be possible to combine with very closely related subjects and make it into a List of online media lockers" or some such title. Having list like this is not a violation of NOTDIRECTORY, because Consumer Reports is not a replacement, at present, since it's in large part a subscription service--and because it very unfortunately and for me infuriatingly does not cover computer technology with the same degree of detail and specificity that we do; and its purpose is different also--one of the key things it does is to make recommendations, which is of course totally outside our scope. And that's why this is not a shopping guide. FWIW, I too very much object to the use of colors, especially bright colors, on this list and all similar lists, and perhaps we should have an RfC about limiting their use when necessary for emphasis or differentiation & using some less obtrusive shading to provide navigation on long lists--but that's not the question here. DGG ( talk ) 01:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have to side with the nominator here, the individual stores are notable but their comparison is not. Where are the sources that give substantive coverage of the comparison? There are none because all they would do is what this article does, list individual features. Wikipedia can't be everything, and it should not be a shopping guide, and that's policy. Nominate the rest of comparisons, too, their existence proves nothing. Hekerui (talk) 20:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Editors are reminded that lists are not all objective, and that referenced entries (like what is there now) are acceptable. What is a valid entry can be discussed on the individual talk pages.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of cultural icons of England

List of cultural icons of England (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:OR TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also nominate the folowing related articles for deletion under similar rationale -

Can anyone please also nominate the other articles and link them all to the discussion here, so that a joint discussion may be able to decide on all of them? (I am not familiar with multiple nominations and so I am not sure how to do it) Thanks Done TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - By George, hold on old chap - this "subjective" list contains 50 references - yeah, I know, the person who put them in hadn't heard of cite tags - so there's certainly some objectivity in there. They refer to articles from the BBC, the Guardian ... cultural icons themselves. Can we find more and better citations? Sure we can. British Postal Museum & Archive "Icons of England" - includes Big Ben, Cup of Tea, Cricket ... the list should sound familiar, because it's culturally shared and richly documented. Or try Culture24: ICONS of England - the Spitfire, the Red Telephone Box... or BBC News: New Icons of Englishness unveiled - guess what: Stonehenge, Cricket, Cup of tea, Routemaster Bus ... room for one more here? try Historic UK: Icons of England - you know what's coming: Cup of Tea, Routemaster Bus, Spitfire, Jerusalem, Stonehenge ... Notable? Of course it is. Is the list inclusion criterion clear? Yes - an icon's in if we can find "multiple, reliable sources" for a thing's being an icon of England. Will it take a while to look through the mass of sources? Yes, but there's no hurry. Keep.Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:34, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The question here is not whether or not we have reliable sources for inclusion of an item in the list. It is whether or not the list requires Original Research on the part of the editor, or judgement whether or not to add it. [I dont see how you would need to judge whether Obama lies in List of US presidents, but here its another matter altogether; even if both lists have reliable sources]
That is, unless you choose to directly the entire list copy from one of the sources, which will then go against the WP copyright policyTheOriginalSoni (talk) 23:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
per an editor's subjective assertion that something is subjective, when the sources say it isn't? Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:50, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are only giving their opinion. You may see Pussy Riot as a Russian icon, and I may not. These articles are not objective enough for an encyclopedia. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some things are pretty uncontroversial, like the Houses of Parliament or ghastly food (note that the snap of a roast dinner clearly features overdone meat, probably tougher than shoe leather) but others are more borderline: for instance, why The Haywain and not The Fighting Temeraire. Its the existence of a huge middle ground that make this article unworkable.TheLongTone (talk) 23:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note that all the articles admit to impossibility of the lists being definitive by stating that they are lists of potential cultural icons.TheLongTone (talk) 00:23, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These are not stupid objections. The plain solution is to require say 3 (or maybe 5) reliable sources for EACH icon, and thereby to exclude "potential" icons which I agree is unacceptable. The result would be to prune the list, drastically, which I suspect is what we all want. An icon is guaranteed to be found in multiple reliable sources. If not, it's not an icon. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:06, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At the point of almost repeating myself, Nobody here claims that we cannot find reliable sources to support the London Bridge's claims to be a cultural icon of England. What we do say is that synthesising such a list by ourselves (than basing it on another sourced list) will be a breach of Wikipedia policies which say that we CANNOT do so. If you really need to have such a list, why not convert the least contentious ones to prose and add to Culture of England?? Nothing stops a prose article from stating what has been said. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:00, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 08:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 08:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 08:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No breach of policy (such as WP:SYNTH) is involved. All list articles — indeed all articles, period — involve collecting materials from different places; there is no other way of building any article. What is at issue is whether there can be clear criteria to delimit this list, and sufficient reliable sources to identify items that meet those criteria. Since the answer is a definite "yes" to both questions, the list may stand. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually because there a seven billion people on Earth, the answer to your first question is a definite "no". - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:06, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between which sources can generally be relied upon to get facts right and which sources' opinions carry weight. These lists rely on opinions, which are per se subjective.TheLongTone (talk) 12:15, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are sufficient good, reliable sources in the case of England - I doubt that's true for the other nations. A single source may be an opinion, but firstly the opinion of the BBC or the Guardian (for example) is better than the opinion of a blogger, and secondly when 3 or 5 good, reliable sources agree then Wikipedia may reasonably assume that there is intersubjective agreement on the matter. Otherwise, every fact and theory no matter how well attested is just "subjective". WP:RS is our standard and we should stick to it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:30, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On this list: the reason given about other lists is nothing to do with this list at all, to keep or not.
On the other lists, the answer is that if there are sufficient sources on the FYR of Macedonia, as seems improbable, then there would be reason to keep. In the case of England, there are excellent sources, so the cases may well differ. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:26, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I note the list is for potential cultural icons; there's plenty on the list that I doubt will ever become actualised- Argos catalogues, Treasure Houses of Britain, Tiptree Jam. Maybe there's an excellent source for Argos catalogues being an icon; THB is a marketing organisation, Tiptree Jam? Are Duchy Originals on the list too? List of cultural icons found on a shelf in Waitrose. Ning-ning (talk) 15:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Argos catalogues have gone, along with Lunch (I ask you) and Andrex. Is Waitrose a cultural icon, btw?TheLongTone (talk) 16:34, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Rewritten) Rather than argue any more, I thought I'd try a better defined list. There are just 7 items that were quickly sourced; no doubt others can find a few more. Most of the sources in the old article failed to assert "cultural icon" status so they had to go, along with nearly all the unsourced entries, it was worse than it looked. See what you think.
(Closing Admin - please note that earlier !votes applied to the original listcruft article.) Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd certainly agree that this is a much more sensible list (& list length), but am not sure as to whether including strictures on criteria for inclusion will be effective in preventing the list bloating to the previous absurd level. Nice to see G.G. Scott's telephone boxes btw: I think they were absent from the old article.TheLongTone (talk) 17:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Much better. Restricting the list to objects should cut down on bloat, though using Attenborough for an example confuses the issue. Big Ben the bell, and Big Ben the cultural icon- isn't the bell just a part of the whole icon (tune, tower, striking the hour)? Also, relying on three sources to mention the magic words " cultural icon" is going to bias the list towards modern-day cultural references. For example Bellarmine jugs, the tomb of Edward the Confessor, Ned Ludd are some old cultural icons, which perhaps won't have the term applied to them. How should the list be expanded? Searching for the term "cultural icon" wherever it's used, or testing whether something has been defined as one thrice? Ning-ning (talk) 18:23, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou. It's only a start, and of course everybody is free to make improvements. I mentioned Attenborough as he was there before but it turned out that independent sources for his iconic status were hard to be sure of, a very specific point: if it's too picky, let's drop it. On bloat, we just watch and revert (and if need be discuss or warn), now we have sharp criteria. On growth, however works for you. On Big Ben, believe it's actually the bell tho' everyone thinks it's the whole thing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I have refrained from voting so far but I remain unconvinced. Yes, Attenborough could qualify; the Greek film Attenberg is actually named after him and takes for granted that the audience recognise his oeuvre. There will be many other sources out there though many will be equally difficult to pin down. But how can we really qualify a list which has to work for all recorded history? Are we talking of cultural influence, tourist sites, well known people? John Locke or Thomas Paine might be said to have had great cultural influence but are they cultural icons? If not, why not? Asking whether people have used that exact term seems pretty unsatisfactory to me. It probably is not a term previous generations would have used, but they would have described the same thing in different ways. And why should the sources be confined to English? Arguably wide recognition in non-English speaking countries ought to count for more, not less. --AJHingston (talk) 01:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - complete OR bogus POV nonsense, cannot be reliably sourced, inherently OR, bogus. JoshuSasori (talk) 13:29, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - Is it natural and/or acceptable for Wikipedia articles and list to contain the criterion (and a proper explanation and justification) for inclusion in the article space? I have seen them as comments, but are they acceptable in the articles themselves? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 15:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good question, and I was wondering about the right way to do it also. Articles are supposed, I believe, to indicate obliquely why they are notable, without using the word. To JoshuSasori, there are many published books with "Cultural Icon" in their title, so people out there certainly think the concept is notable. To AJHingston, whether the term could even have been explained to someone of Locke's generation I rather doubt - Locke would have thought the term irrational; and in the Middle Ages it would surely have been thought blasphemous. So I suspect it only makes sense to a more modern mind, say 20th century. Perhaps also each nation's icons are necessarily different, so separate lists may make more sense than attempting any more cosmic all-in-one definition. Just a thought. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:40, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
List of things tourists want to be photographed near when they visit England?TheLongTone (talk) 18:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Photogrpahing a cup of tea? Sorry but no. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 01:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 23:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. I think that we can all agree that cultural icon is a valid and notable topic. In general, a list of elements that are part of a notable subject is valid if the individual entries can be shown to also be notable. Each of the lists in question consist of elements that have articles, so the individual elements are themselves notable. The point of contention in tne nomination is that putting together such a list is original research consisting of synthesis. As multiple reliable sources can (and should) be used to determine incluson i the list, to that extent this is not original research as it is the opinion of tertiary soruces that are used to make this determination. With respect to this being synthesis, there is not going to be 100% agreement from everybody in the world on whether an item is a cultiral icon. As such, any such list that would attempt to follow the nominator's reasoning would be doomed to be named like "List of cultural icons of France as determined by the BBC" or some such. It's not synthesis to list items together that are generally known as cultural icons by third party sources even if they aren't always tehexact same sources. -- Whpq (talk) 15:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the English list because it has a real criterion and real sources. Hold off on the others to see if they can be handled similarly. They should not have been nominated together, because they are of different natures. Basing a list like this on sources is the only possible way to do it. The qualification of the list is indeed subjective, which is why we cannot do it ourselves. ThWe could argue whether for the English list 3 sources or 2 are needed, and how specific they need to be, but that can be decided but the concept of cultural icon is more than notable, more even than famous--it's a combination of famous and of being famously distinctive and characteristic. I do not agree with Whpg--we cannot include everything notable in a country, or everything notable in a country that we here judge particularly important and characteristic. We have no business making such distinctions. We can appropriately however, decide on objective criteria for such distinctions. The non-English lists at present do not show that. DGG ( talk ) 02:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC) .[reply]
  • Delete The attempt to establish objective criteria for the List of cultural icons of England fails spectacularly because it's made by a user. The cut-off is necessarily arbitrary and the sourcing of the other pages is terrible. Delete them all, the country articles are sufficient. Hekerui (talk) 20:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A search for ikoną kultury produces a number of hits for Barbie, Batman and Jesus Christ- the first a result of a Polish edition of "Barbie Culture" by Mary F. Rogers, which has been (mis)titled "Barbie as a Cultural Icon", the second from a review of a US book on Batman, the last a translated segment from the Catholic Encyclopedia. I think this shows the notion of cultural icon is somewhat Anglocentric. Another example is Norman Wisdom, claimed by some British writers to be an Albanian cultural icon- the only hit for ikonë kulturore is My Little Pony. The list I'm really looking forward to is Cultural icons of the Wahhabi. Ning-ning (talk) 22:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, defining a "cultural icon" is inherently subjective, and thus WP:OR. A list of cultural icons as designated by some external authority might be notable enough, but that is not what these lists appear to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lankiveil (talk • contribs)
  • Delete: An inherently subjective list, even if sources are found for it. A List of big trees or List of nice paintings will always be doomed for deletion, even if some published source has compiled such a source before—what is a "cultural icon" for one person will be a national disgrace or bore for another, and no "official list" can change that. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 03:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I must agree with Hasirpad here now. There is no way we can remove the list of subjectiveness. Delete. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 05:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - well sourced, no original research. Everything is, of course, subjective, but the list(s) use unoriginal research; they merely repeated what other sources are telling us. The subjective judgements are not those of Wikipedia's editors, so it does not violate WP:OR. WilyD 11:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This argument becomes recursive. What are the critia for deciding which sourcs are reliable?TheLongTone (talk) 12:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's a fair question, and one at the heart of Wikipedia. Ultimately we can only go by what exists out there in the world, and by noticing what seems to be agreed and respected out there. Beyond that you're into the philosophy of knowledge - how do we know anything at all, etc. The point here is that multiple sources agree that the concept "cultural icon" exists, and they also agree on what constitute major icons, just as people agree quite well on what is a "table" when it's wooden, waist height, and has 4 legs, but less well when it's of a quirky and ingenious design. There are many books with "cultural icon" in their title, by the way. Here are some:
  • Brooker, Will (2001). Batman Unmasked: Analysing a Cultural Icon. Continuum.
  • Edwards, Peter; Karl Enenkel, and Elspeth Graham (editors) (2011). The Horse as Cultural Icon: The Real and the Symbolic Horse in the Early Modern World. Brill. {{cite book}}: |author= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  • Foudy, Julie; Leslie Heywood; Shari L Dworkin (2003). Built to Win: The Female Athlete as Cultural Icon. University of Minnesota Press. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lastauthoramp= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help)
  • Nelkin, Dorothy; M Susan Lindee (2004). The DNA Mystique: The Gene as a Cultural Icon. University of Michigan Press. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lastauthoramp= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help)
  • Biedermann, Hans (1994). Dictionary of symbolism: cultural icons and the meanings behind them. Meridan.
  • Heyer, Paul (2012). Titanic Century: Media, Myth, and the Making of a Cultural Icon. Praeger.
  • Reydams-Schils, Gretchen J (2003). Plato's Timaeus as cultural icon. University of Notre Dame Press.
  • Gilbert, Erik (2008). The Dhow as Cultural Icon. Boston University.

--- Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:36, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Pascua

Jon Pascua (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Has only played in the Segunda División B & lower therefore he fails WP:NFOOTY as a player. As for his coaching career although he is a goalkeeping coach at a fully professional side that doesn't infer notability as WP:NFOOTY doesn't refer to goalkeeping coaches, therefore he must pass WP:GNG which he doesn't. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 22:46, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meg Myers

Meg Myers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was dePRODed by creator but still fails to meet criteria. Concern was: 'Fails to meet notability criteria per WP:BAND' . Further searches have failed to reveal more reliable sources in number and scope. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:39, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I performed another search (including at British sources BBC and Telegraph) trying to find other sources but I'm finding mostly blogs that probably wouldn't meet Wikipedia's requirements for sources. However, we should keep in mind that she is obviously starting a career so there aren't that many sources and she seems to be keeping a rather indie life at this time. SwisterTwister talk 02:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Questions - Thanks for looking into this, SwisterTwister and VQuakr. I'm new to editing Wikipedia at this level of rigor. I have a couple questions: Is it significant that she has been booked twice at The Viper Room in the last 6 months? That's more than just a bar gig; that venue has a lot of prestige. Also, is the following significant? She currently has 39 ratings and 9 reviews on iTunes. By comparison, Christmas With the Beach Boys, a compilation of two previous Beach Boys Christmas albums, has only 31 ratings and 4 reviews. I don't know if iTunes user response is significant at all. Is this the appropriate place to ask these questions? Kemery720 (talk) 04:25, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is an excellent place to discuss and ask questions about Meg Myers's notability as defined on Wikipedia. In my opinion the radio station is too local for criterion #11 (which calls for a "major network," not an individual station) and the PETA reference is pretty trivial. Since notability is not inherited, what clubs she has played is only relevant if it has resulted in coverage by reliable, third party sources. Similarly, social network and user generated content such as Facebook and iTunes do not convey notability. VQuakr (talk) 05:02, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • New Music Seminar - How about the New Music Seminar? She's listed in the "Artists On The Verge" top 100 chart and included in the compilation "New Music Seminar - Artist On The Verge 2012, Vol. 1". The New Music Seminar, discussed in articles here and here, is a notable musical conference which focuses largely on up-and-coming artists. I can't find a better source to provide evidence that a new and relatively unknown artist is, nonetheless, notable. Kemery720 (talk) 07:57, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 08:05, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 08:05, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 08:05, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:08, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 00:09, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Natacha Peyre

Natacha Peyre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject (or someone claiming to be them) has requested that this article be deleted; in ticket:2012121410008341. They have been advised of our deletion policy; that this request is not guaranteed to succeed; and that their request will be made public. I shall notify WP:BLPN. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:12, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - first of all we can not be sure it seems that the one requesting this is even her someone in Miss Peyres entourage. Secondly this article passes WP:GNG, WP:BIO. Soon we will have stars like Paris Hilton requesting that their articles be deleted, lets not set a precedent.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But I do agree with the IPs opinions at the talk page which I guess could be Natacha, that the article needs to be somewhat rewritten in another style.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note that Aftonbladet is yellow-press, and borderline reliable at best. That being said, I won't !vote in either direction since despite being Swedish I have never heard the name but on the other hand it's not a subject that holds enough interest for me to try to look for sources. --bonadea contributions talk 13:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I guess that Natacha has left her glamour model days behind, but that doesnt mean that she can erase her past. She did not complain when she earn cash from the glamour modeling. We have to stand by our choices in life. She is/was one of if not the most known glamour model in Scandinavia for a long time.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:37, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. It does seem that it is simply a case of regret. Anyone under 30 in Sweden would know who Natacha Peyre is. She is by every definition a public person. Nymf hideliho! 22:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Though Peyre could not in any way be described as "important" from a more serious viewpoint she is certainly well known. A couple of years ago she was all over the Swedish newspaper bills. /FredrikT (talk) 00:02, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. This is a run-of-the-mill juvenile attack article by schoolchildren aimed at schoolchildren. Uncle G (talk) 21:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Casey swag

Casey swag (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'd almost say this might border on vandalism or perhaps a hoax. I highly doubt it meets notability requirements. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 20:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:26, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jewish leaders in the Land of Israel

AfDs for this article:
List of Jewish leaders in the Land of Israel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While this article was kept at AFD a few months ago, subsequent discussion, or lack thereof, has shown no interest in fixing the problems identified in the close, defining its scope, providing any sources, or otherwise justifying its existence. This is a completely synthesized list with a grossly obvious POV aim, that of fabricating some sort of proof that the land which now includes the state of Israel has always belonged to Jews.

See Talk:List of Jewish leaders in the Land of Israel, where I explain many of the reasons this list is unencyclopedic: among them, that the definition of "leader" is arbitrary (no attempt is made to distinguish between political and spiritual leaders even when such a distinction actually did exist; people with minimal power, like Mattathias, are included because they're Jewish icons, while party leaders are excluded), that users who want to keep the article as is have refused to provide sources after being asked repeatedly, and that there is no encyclopedic common link between, say, Jewish subordinate rulers under other empires and modern PMs. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

contribs (Talkback) 22:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • What are the reliable sources*, and how will you clean up the POV?
*That discuss the subject, obviously. Simply providing a reliable sources about Abraham or Maimonides or Golda Meir is unhelpful here, since each obviously has his or her own article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is a reliable source, and the POV can be fixed through editing. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:11, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're going to have to do better than that. If I ask you for specific sources and you link me to a library, you're really just confirming that you cannot actually find any sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It includes a biographical dictionary. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so I suppose that the "Top 50 American Jews," "Fashion Icons," and "Athletes" featured on the page are also Jewish leaders in the land of Israel? Fascinating! (Really though, this is pathetic.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:42, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was not involved in the prior discussion, or the issues since then. WP:CLEANUP and we do not have a deadline. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't change the fact that it happened. It wasn't about passive failure to act, but about actively working to make sure the article was not improved. We don't have a deadline, but we do theoretically have content policies. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:59, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.Nothing have changed from the last nomination.The article is properly sourced by WP:RS.If there are some POV problem they should be fixed.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 09:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fact that nothing has changed from the last nomination is exactly the problem. Attempts to fix the POV/synth/scope problems after the last AFD were reverted by POV-motivated editors who evidently wished to keep the article as a propaganda piece. Saying "these problems can be fixed through regular editing, so we should keep the article" and then actively opposing efforts to fix the problems does not demonstrate good faith on the part of users who wish to keep the article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:38, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SYNTH, WP:NOTDIRECTORY, and WP:COATRACK. Just by the name, I can see that this page could potentially contain an infinite number of individuals, which is certainly not in the spirit of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The page doesn't even begin to mention all the Orthodox rabbis, Rebbes, and rosh yeshivas who have lived in Israel. I also agree with Roscelese that the page is really a coatrack for an underlying POV of proving that Israel belongs to the Jews. Yoninah (talk) 17:34, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Definitely a useful list, and a helpful sub-article for Jewish history, references many reliable sources. If we keep articles such as the List of Jewish United States Supreme Court justices, I don't see any reason why we shouldn't keep a list of Jewish leaders of the Land of Israel. This article scope should include only the top leader, and not individual rabbis. Marokwitz (talk) 19:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Marokwitz: Considering that the Orthodox don't give credence to the Israeli chief rabbis, I'd say your reasoning is rather biased. Yoninah (talk) 20:00, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't understand what bias you are accusing me of, but present-day Israeli chief rabbis, should not be on this list, in my opinion. They are not the "Leaders of Israel". Since the establishment of the State of Israel, the leaders of Israel have been secular. Marokwitz (talk) 20:33, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • But we already have a list of Israeli prime ministers. Your comment fails to explain away one of the essential problems with this article: its conflation of religious and political leaders, people with authority and people with a following, etc. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:13, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Due to political and religious changes, the Jewish people in the Land of Israel were ruled by different types of rulers in different eras - sometimes religious ("Nasi" = "President of the Sanhedrin" or high priests) or secular (Kings, or modern day Prime Ministers). If there are people with only "a following" and no actual authority, they do not belong in this article. The inclusion criteria could be phrased this way - the appointed leader of the central legal body of the Jewish community in the Land of Israel. Marokwitz (talk) 10:11, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. My gut feeling says "delete", as it's a messy article with synthesis and OR issues. But it does not seem to match any of the fourteen reasons given in WP:DEL-REASON. I also have a problem with the nominator's use of terms like "grossly obvious POV aim" which looks a bit like a failure to AGF. I think it's generally a good idea to focus on the content of the article rather than trying to read the minds of the contributors. Still, I do tend to agree that it's a pretty awful article. Tigerboy1966  23:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
striking my Keep, the article may fall foul of WP:NOT. I am now officially neutral.  Tigerboy1966  23:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reconsidering. Though, since you point to DEL-REASON, I must mention that my argument above is that this article falls foul of 6, 7, and 8 - since no one has been able to find sources on "Jewish leaders in the land of Israel," thus demonstrating that the topic is notable and non-synthetic, rather than simply asserting that a bunch of disparate groups have all been Jewish. (beyond the fact that DEL-REASON is not exhaustive - "Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following") –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:41, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, again The article still provides a comprehensive list as described, broken down by era and still backed by appropriate reliable and verifiable sources. The previous AfD closed with an overwhelming consensus for retention and this just appears to be an attempt to take another bite at the apple. Alansohn (talk) 00:29, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The previous AFD also closed with a statement that problems should be fixed through editing, but no one apparently cares about that part of the close. This so-called "comprehensive list" is a bunch of existing lists weakly glued together with the aim of proving a political point and, more importantly, without any actual sources. A lengthy reflist is useless if none of the refs actually support the topic, and you're not going to find a source that draws a lineage from, say, the geonim to the PMs. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:41, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as in the past two AfDs. And as repeatedly explained that being Jewish means to belong to both a religion, Judaism, as well as to an ethnicity, see Jews, unlike other religions. Thus the people on this list are WP:N from either one or both perspectives. There are enough WP:RS to back this up. Not sure why the nominator is wielding this axe. Recorded Jewish history that stretches over 3,330 years, during that time there have been a variety of Jewish religious and secular, even anti-religious and in between leaders. The Jewish people, over the bulk of their history, have referred to their homeland as the Land of Israel ארץ ישראל , so not sure, but is that what is ticking the nominator off? since there are so many anti-Israel disputes always on the go on WP that it's hard to keep track of all the violations of WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND and WP:DONOTDISRUPT and hopefully this is not another excuse for another such WP:CONTENT and WP:POV dispute. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 13:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete like my first rationale, combining biblical figures with modern figures and figuring out what they have in common with the vague terms of "leader" and "Land of Israel" is a violation of our original research policy. Secret account 06:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; this is OR at best, and a political toy at worse. Any list whose inclusion criteria are so broad as to include all those people under the same heading is meaningless except as a political talking point. I would support its existence if there were reliable sources that put those people together in the same grouping; until that happens, this is synthesis of cherry picked individuals. — Coren (talk) 02:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. I have not been involved in editing this article until now. Today I started making some corrections, removals of incorrect data, addition of reliable sources, and other enhancements. The lead has been improved to accurately define the topic. I confirm that there are are still remaining problems with factual accuracy and sourcing of this article (For example, Ezra was not governor of Judea). But I still believe that the topic of the article is legitimate, and any remaining problems can be fixed through editing.Marokwitz (talk) 13:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is a list masquerading as the usual Wikipedia pro-Israel POV really, and it is not surprising to see the usual names support retention. As others have noted, a coatracked, synth mess that does not belong here. Tarc (talk) 15:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a perfectly acceptable list, and with 35 references, which is not a requirement for lists, it is better sourced than 3/4 of the articles on Wikipedia.--Geewhiz (talk) 15:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Jews have a long history with the approximate geographic area of Israel. I don't think it matters that religious, military, and political leaders are mixed together in this list. Religion to this day plays a powerful role in commanding people's allegiances. Military might and political leadership obviously constitute hallmarks of ethnic coherence. I don't think the reader can be assumed to be so unsophisticated as to fail to make allowances for leadership of different sorts to emerge in response to differing problems and threats besetting a group of people at different points in their extensive history, in relation to an approximate geographic area. Bus stop (talk) 20:55, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't that be a straw man argument? Are there any scientists or musicians who could fill that role? Are there any scientists or musicians on this list? It is conceivable that one could exist. But this is hypothetical for me because I can bring no person to mind who could fulfill that role. Bus stop (talk) 23:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Reversing my earlier opinion after a lot more consideration. I think that the various sections would be fine as separate articles, and many of them already exist as such. Putting them together like this is WP:Synthesis and implies (to me) a continuity which isn't really supported by the text or the sources. It is an interesting piece and I do LIKE IT, so I'm not saying this lightly.  Tigerboy1966  23:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tigerboy1966—is implication a reason for deleting an article? There can be gaps in Jewish leadership in the land of Israel too. This list documents reliably sourced notable examples of Jewish leadership in the land of Israel. Are there examples of Jewish individuals commanding the allegiances of large numbers of Jewish people in the land of Israel? Can we document them? Should an article be deleted because such documentation "implies…continuity"[20]? Bus stop (talk) 00:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No. It should be deleted because it's synthesis. Like I said, the separate lists are encyclopedic: putting them together in one big article is not. Tigerboy1966  08:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but that's a mis-interpretation of the synthesis policy. We have many list and outline type articles which do not have a single source covering the entire list. See for example Outline of anarchism. Compiling a list of people matching a specific inclusion criteria (based on reliable sources for each entry, which verifies the inclusion) is not a forbidden type of synthesis. According to WP:SYNTH, what is forbidden is combining material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. This article does not reach or imply any such conclusions. Marokwitz (talk) 09:15, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any gaps in leadership? Until one examines the list for discontinuities one cannot conclude that continuity has been established. Bus stop (talk) 13:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a serious question? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:49, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Historically relevant and pertinent.--Zananiri (talk) 11:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This AfD is yet another attempt to suppress information on the Jewish connection with and continuity in the land of Israel, something which is well established history recognized by all serious scholars. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 18:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is original research. No one has provided a reliable source that lists "leaders of the land of Israel". Even the name "land of Israel" is original research. It combines modern Israel with ancient realms that editors consider to be Isreal. We do not even known if Abraham, Isaac and Jacob even existed. We are combining people in Genesis (which includes Adam and Eve and Noah) with Benjamin Netanyahu. That would be like having a list of kings and queens of England from King Arthur, with his advisors Merlin the magician, Sir Galahad and Sir Lancelot, to Elizabeth II. TFD (talk) 08:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article is about "Jewish leaders in the Land of Israel" , not "leaders of the land of Israel". If you think that mythological figures do not belong in this list, this can be corrected by editing, that is not a deletion reason. The vast majority of people on this list are real ones. Marokwitz (talk) 09:47, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • TFD, my initial reaction to your English-monarchs example was "yeah, good example!" but then I realized that that's only a very small part of the problem. Obviously drawing a lineage from the patriarchs to the PMs is grossly POV, but in the English monarchs example, there is actually continuity from William to Elizabeth, continuity which is not present in this list - there is no inheritance of power or role from the King of Israel to the Chief Rabbi to the Prime Minister. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:09, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: If there are issues about the article then tagging the page would be more constructive than deleting it -RoseL2P (talk) 13:58, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tags aren't permanent badges of shame - they're meant to prompt improvement of the article. I did better than tagging the article - I edited it in an effort to improve it - and was reverted by one of the users who had claimed in the first AFD that problems could be solved through talk and editing, so the bad-faith "it just needs editing" excuse falls flat. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:09, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was : Speedily deleted - blanked by creator. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 20:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Waddy Werewolf

Waddy Werewolf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not the news, and I doubt this series of attacks will have much enduring significance. If it is kept, this title is inappropriate, as Google retrieves only this article and the one present reference when searching for "Waddy Werewolf". CtP (t • c) 19:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Objectiveli

Objectiveli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Promotional article for an app/startup with routine coverage in technology circles. Fails WP:PRODUCT, the company fails WP:CORPDEPTH and basic WP:GNG. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 19:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Two PRweb pieces and an August 2012 review that describes this as a "web app still in its Beta phase" and "still in its infancy" indicate that this is too early and too little noticed to meet the notability guidelines. AllyD (talk) 19:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now - Agreed, it's probably too soon as much of the links are press releases and other primary-like sources and Google News provided nothing useful (aside from a blog written by the founder). I also found this which reads as if the founder, Ritu Raj, wrote it himself. This interview with the founder which briefly talks about him, wouldn't be much help to this article. As I said, it seems too much of the links, at this time, are press releases and other primary-like sources. SwisterTwister talk 02:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:36, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:36, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Aaliyah#2012.E2.80.93present:_Second_posthumous_album. MBisanz talk 23:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aaliyah's second posthumous album

Aaliyah's second posthumous album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Yet another rumour-filled article with a dearth of reliable content. Sources from the same day make contradictory statements (BBC says Missy Elliot knows nothing of the project, MTV quotes Missy Elliot's discussion of the project, no one tells me whether I care about Missy Elliot's participation). Looking over the history of the article, it's just been one rumour after another. Fails based on WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NALBUMS, and WP:HAMMER. —Kww(talk) 19:19, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Leaning towards delete or redirect to Aaliyah#2012.E2.80.93present:_Second_posthumous_album - Agreed, it seems this "posthumous album" is something Drake is pursuing himself and it seems her family recently refused to be involved. Google News has not provided any useful sources aside from the rumours. What concerns me is that, although one single was released, there hasn't been any solid information about the album. Naturally, this has happened before with other posthumous work but, at best, this is better mentioned at Aaliyah's article, and it currently is. SwisterTwister talk 03:07, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 16:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David McCue

David McCue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Vanity page, not notable for BLP with a passing mention and subject's own company website failing to pass GNG. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Promotional and the one third-party source doesn't provide much and some of the sentences in the book read like an advertisement. I found a profile at inc.com here confirming they ranked once but the book claims they ranked twice. Google News found little evidence when I searched "David McCue" but a search for "McCue Corp" provided relevant links (they require payment but two if not all three appear to be press releases). However, the second page provided more relevant evidence for the company, a New York Daily News article (though it would be insufficient), an award here and this which actually mentions David McCue himself. An attempt to find additional evidence about the Inc. ranking was fruitless. If there was an article for the company, I would have suggested redirecting. SwisterTwister talk 20:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:23, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:23, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The main issue here is whether the article violates the WP:CRYSTAL policy that prohibits unverifiable speculation on future events and products. I have reviewed the article and the debate and come to that it does. There were a few keep votes after the relisting of the AFD, but the two first don't provide a substantive argument to the main issue (Neither "Looks like an article in its early stage" and "It's a start class article, but that's no reason for it to be deleted." address the issue; the article was not put on AFD because of its lack of development.) The next two keep votes do point to sources that attempt to address the WP:CRYSTAL concerns, but a few lines is not the significant coverage that WP:N asks for. Fleet Command's analysis also shows that much of the sourcing used in the article trying to address some of the concerns is sketchy at best.

Having looked at the article, I also note that some of the inline citations point either directly or indirectly to web forum discussions, something that does not qualify as a reliable source. Kww pointing out "Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors." from the CRYSTAL policy and Starblind pointing out that "Rumour-mongering isn't Wikipedia's job" also carries weight here.

I have considered the redirect and merge options that some suggested as an alternative, but with the target articles would contain little if any coverage of this subject matter, so Codename Lisa's concern about sending readers "on a wild goose chase" has merit. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:34, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Windows Blue

Windows Blue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This OS name and its release date are not confirmed - it's all speculation at this stage. Jasper Deng (talk) 18:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Codename Lisa (talk) 18:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Codename Lisa (talk) 18:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have there been any rumored versions of Windows that have been disproven altogether?? (Please triple-check your memory of Windows history. Back in 2004, Wikipedia talked about something called Windows Longhorn. Was it cancelled?? No, it was renamed Windows Vista.) Georgia guy (talk) 18:42, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rumour-mongering isn't Wikipedia's job, leave that to the blogs. I think you're misunderstanding "Verifiability, not truth", which is more about taking reliable sources over some random person's word ("I know JFK was killed by aliens, man, they told me so in a dream!"). It's not at all an encouragement of far-flung rumours and idle speculation. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:43, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Look down at point 5: Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors. Certainly we can verify that the rumours exist, but the rumours themselves are not suitable content.—Kww(talk) 20:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's really for just opinion pieces and tabloid journalism, where one person randomly suspects something. In the case of this article, we have multiple sources converging on fairly basic an uncontroversial details. By all means remove any speculative stuff like features, but a top level stub that gives the name, dates of leaks and suspected shipping dates should suffice. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello, Ritchie. According to WP:R#DELETE, item #10, redirects that point to an article which contains virtually no information on the subject are candidates for deletion. Such redirects are evil. They send readers to s long irrelevant article and waste their time before they realizes the article contains no information on the subject. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a guideline, which can be bent per WP:IAR, which I would do for reasons I have just described. Are you seriously telling me that somebody typing "Windows Blue", and going to a page on Microsoft Windows that has a small section on possible future versions (which is what a redirect will do), won't get what's going on? I reiterate - unless salted, the article has a high chance of simply being created by a random editor again. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi. Microsoft Windows does not have any info on Windows Blue. Even if it had, there is a clear consensus that is a matter of WP:CRYSTAL. Remember, IAR says ignore rules to improve Wikipedia, not to irritate its readership. "The first and most important factor in Wikipedia for deciding whether to break or to adhere to a rule is whether or not it makes you more popular". (Fleet Command, 5 December 2012)
And don't worry about salting or re-creation. It is fixed in just a snap. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 15:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'm ducking out of this conversation as you're not really getting what I'm saying, I'm afraid. My concern is that the article will be recreated by somebody else soon, and we'll be back to AfD round 2, just like Windows 8. How do we avoid that? --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I assure you, I do "get" what you say; I just don't share your concern, i.e. neither I am afraid of the article recreation nor I believe a redirect would stop it. (The fact that we are here proves that a redirect has already failed.) WP:CSD#G4 can deal with the case. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 08:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah fair enough, we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. Long term I think an article will get established, even if it has to go through a bunch of AfDs or G4s first (such as just about any AfD that gets closed per WP:HAMMER) --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:16, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi. Actually there are two good reason: (1) Sources do not verify its contents. The article introduces "Windows Blue" as a new version of Windows, while if you read its sources, none of them says so. They think Windows Blue is a rapid-update mechanism, name of a new update, an update roll out a feature pack or new version of Windows. (2) WP:CRYSTAL says rumors are not allowed, even if the article spreading the rumor is FA quality. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:45, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, previously Delete. Even though WP:CRYSTAL applies, there is enough coverage of this topic on a number of reliable websites that an article, even at this stage, may be warranted. Windows Vista, which had the longest development period, was first created in September 2003, so getting a year's head start on Windows Blue might not be such a bad idea. --GSK ● ✉ ✓ 18:31, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Theverge reached out to Microsoft for comment, however a company spokesperson refused to discuss Windows Blue. And Wes Miller, an analyst at Directions on Microsoft: "I think we witnessed a new mode of aggressive upgrade pricing this year with Windows 8, and Microsoft could well try that tactic again, really dropping in an incentive for frequent upgraders to do so, If (Windows Blue) is the full-fare cost of Windows, even for Windows 8 users, I can’t imagine that going over too well." IanMurrayWeb (talk) 05:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If I had to put a [failed verification] in front of every statement in the article, all four sourced statements would have received one. Let's have a look:
Article says
Windows Blue is the codename of an upcoming release of Microsoft Windows operating system.
The Verge source says
the company is planning to standardize on an approach, codenamed Blue, across Windows and Windows Phone in an effort to provide more regular updates to consumers
ZDNet source says
Blue is more of a feature pack, which would/could include be a rollup of fixes plus some new features
Softpedia source says
According to Verge blah blah
No offense guys, but I think you should read the source itself instead of just its name!
The rest of the stuff written in there do not have a source at all. Fleet Command (talk) 09:45, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 22:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Knoxville Daily Sun

Knoxville Daily Sun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable online news source. Proving notability for a news source is difficult as there's no specific criteria for them and it can be difficult to find news publications about a news publication that are independent. I'll give it a shot anyway. Subject fails WP:GNG with no Google News search or Google News Archive search results (I excluded the website's publications from the search). The subject also fails WP:WEBSITE as I can't find that it has won any awards. I thought perhaps if it had been widely cited by other news sources that it could be considered notable but I can't find a single care where other news sources have cited KDS but I'm not sure that I was able to perform and adequate enough search to say with authority that it's never been cited. OlYeller21Talktome 17:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:56, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:56, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. I live in the Knoxville area, but I had never heard of this "newspaper" until seeing this AfD. From reading the article and looking at the online newspaper website, I determined that this "newspaper" is nothing more than a promotional website operated by a website development and marketing company in the area. (I was familiar with the name of the business, having seen some of their other websites.) On this page, the company appears to describe the site as a "web portal for a geographic area". Between OlYeller's searching and my insights, I think we can conclude that this is non-notable. Note: An earlier version of the article was speedy-deleted two years ago. --Orlady (talk) 18:25, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 03:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 00:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

World Vision in Progress

World Vision in Progress (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page contains a small amount of useful information that could easily be merged with Rimsha Masih blasphemy case. Andrew (talk) 16:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I can't find sources that would establish notability for this per WP:ORG so my recommendation would be to delete and merge that single paragraph into the blasphemy case article. §FreeRangeFrogcroak
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 03:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge somewhere and redirect - Google News found results for another organization with the same name and Christian affiliaton, World Vision, this confirms they are not related, unsurprisingly (this is a rather short and common name for an organization). However, I did find some relevant results for World Vision in Progress here and here (both Italian) and a different search provided additional links relevant to the Rimsha Masih case here and other results here and here (both Pakistan Christian Post). Considering they are based in Lahore, I searched and found this news article from Lahore which mentions a "World Vision" but I don't know if this is relevant. It seems they also gained attention for helping a man, Amanat Masih, who is the father of the girl in the first Pakistan Christian Post article, also accused of blasphemy, with news articles here, here and others. So far, I don't think I have found any evidence when this group was founded or its founder, although I have found an executive director and spokesman but I would assume the foundation is recent (ten years or less). A slightly better article could be written with these cases above but it wouldn't be sufficient. SwisterTwister talk 06:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 06:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Close as keep by nominator - AfD self-retracted. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Gruzis

Evan Gruzis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was dePRODed by creator without addressing the issues. Concern was: Only primary sources. A list of exhibitions does not assert notability - all artists exhibit. Fails criteria at WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:39, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 20:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Max Cooper (electronica musician)

Max Cooper (electronica musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was brought to my attention by a disgruntled new editor whose similar article had been rejected at AfC. Cooper seems to have recently (2010) turned to producing dance mixes and I can't see any reliable coverage about him online (though he's due to appear at a major festival in 2013). There's an Independent blog post, but it is Cooper describing himself. The IDJ magazine (cited in the article) does not seem to have anything about him in its online archive. Seems at the moment to fail WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. Note that the article is authored and devloped by Cooper's manager, which raises a major WP:COI problem too. Sionk (talk) 13:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:36, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:36, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 03:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 04:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:MUSICBIO LK (talk) 06:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A Google News search found recent results here and here while Google News archives also found results here. This and this suggest he performed at the Decibel Festival three months ago in Seattle and performed at the GLADE Festival this past June (it's not easy searching for reliable sources to find the festival date but found a decent one here) at Houghton Hall with a link here and an interview here. This mentions he has collaborated with other electronica acts including Echaskech. I haven't found that much but this tour listing suggests he has not become widely known yet but is starting to gain attention (his website has several tour dates listed for the new year) and is mainly based in the UK. He also recently released an EP, Conditions One, collaborating with Braids, Ghosting Season and D/R/U/G/S (aka Callum Wright). I plan to improve the article later today, SwisterTwister talk 17:46, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) 00:17, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commencement (unofficial)

Commencement (unofficial) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Page has been previously been prodded. An 'unofficial' album, unable to find any coverage, consists of nothing but a track list and infobox. J04n(talk page) 12:34, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 03:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) -- Cheers, Riley 00:04, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Oppenheimer

Sarah Oppenheimer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

DePRODed by creator without addressing the issues. Concern was: Only primary sources. A list of exhibitions does not assert notability - all artists exhibit. Fails criteria at WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:54, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Userfy The article looks fishy - quickly-created promotional article, by a brand new SPA who obviously already knew how to do Wikipedia articles. Actually they quickly created a whole set of crosslinked articles; see DUVE Berlin (also just created by the same SPA) and the list of artists (with even less sourcing than this one) in that article. But it's only one day old. Existence of wp:notability-suitable sources looks possible, if not likely. There should be a chance to see if wp:suitable sources can be added and brought back into article space then. North8000 (talk) 12:34, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Change / update based on subsequent work by Colapeninsula. North8000 (talk) 20:24, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:25, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:25, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:25, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 16:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Succo

Chris Succo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

DePRODed by creator without addressing issues. Concern was: Only primary sources. Fails to meet criteria at WP:BIO. A list of exhibitions does not assert notability - all artists exhibit. Also fails at WP:CREATIVE. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Zero indication of wp:notability. The article looks fishy - quickly-created promotional article, by a brand new SPA who obviously already knew how to do Wikipedia articles. Actually they quickly created a whole set of cross-linked articles. See DUVE Berlin (also just created by them) and the list of artists (with even less sourcing than this one) in that article.North8000 (talk) 12:42, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 03:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Magic rocks

Magic rocks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Unreferenced. Just one example of many manufactures who sold crystal gardens which were in wide use before their alleged invention in 1940. This is simply an an advertisement with no notability. The process is much better described at Chemical garden which is just partially duplicated here.  Velella  Velella Talk   09:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe, but that would apply far more to the generic Crystal Garden/Chemical Garden toys of which this is just one poorly-referenced brand: the long history is not this brand's at all. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:08, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 23:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 09:35, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was WP:WITHDRAWN. (non-admin closure) Mkdwtalk 22:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eileen Younghusband (Le Croissette)

Eileen Younghusband (Le Croissette) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Second World War WAAF officer with no claim of any real notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:17, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Headcount strongly favours keeping, New York City Subway is already 124k, so merger is impossible WilyD 12:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New York City Subway in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The whole article is WP:TRIVIA. Any notable popular culture references could easily be incorporated as a section in New York City Subway 1292simon (talk) 07:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Oppose. The article is too long to be incorporated as a section. There are several articles related to the NYC Subway existing as separate articles due to being too long. Vcohen (talk) 08:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AfD !votes usually take the form of keep/delete, rather than support/oppose, for the sake of clarity. DoctorKubla (talk) 09:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Vcohen (talk) 10:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please note, "in popular culture" is an essay. "Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines." 1292simon (talk) 09:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I think a relevant essay trumps a completely irrelevant guideline. DoctorKubla (talk) 10:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep While comprehensive, it's not a good article in other ways: it's very badly sourced (of the 3 refs, one is a forum, one is a business website, and only one is a real published reliable source), and it's a list whereas Wikipedia style generally prefers paragraphs of prose. But even the proposer suggests a partial merge rather than outright deletion, and I think leaving it here is better than merging for reasons of length. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:27, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep The nomination misunderstands WP:TRIVIA which does not seem to have been read. The nomination seems to be suggesting merger into another article and that would not require deletion. Warden (talk) 13:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per DoctorKubla and Warden, although the classifications should be changed from Start to List. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 13:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a fine "in popular culture" article. No reason to delete. If you want to improve it, fine. But there are much more important things to do. Borock (talk) 17:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know the policy, and too lazy to look up right now, but it seems to me that if the "popular culture" work is notable there does not really need to be a secondary source saying that the subway is featured in it. It can be the source itself. Borock (talk) 18:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Violates WP:V, in that the article is not based on independent, third-party sources. Basing the article on independent, third-party sources is what helps ensure that we do not stray into WP:INDISCRIMINATE territory. If the article were indeed compliant with WP:V, we would be easily able to demonstrate that reliable sources had found at least the majority of these facts to be relevant and important when considering the portrayal of the New York City Subway in popular culture. Instead, the article is a simple laundry-list of facts. Each individual fact may be verifiable (as WP:V does permit verification of individual facts through primary sources), but the collection of those facts into a representation of "this is what it's important to know about the portrayal of the New York City Subway in popular culture" cannot be verified.—Kww(talk) 19:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An article topic only "violates" WP:V if the entire content is unverifiable, ie "Martian literature makes multiple references to the New York City Subway", not current unverified in the article. Primary sources are allowed in Wikipedia. If the article says "The Bee Gees recorded the song 'Subway' for their 1976 album Children of the World", the Bee Gees song "Subway" suffices as evidence. To demand the New York Times or something also state ""The Bee Gees recorded the song 'Subway' for their 1976 album Children of the World" is just silly game playing. --Oakshade (talk) 20:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please read my argument (and WP:V) again. I agree that individual facts can be verified to primary sources. No problem there. WP:V also states that articles need to be based on independent, third-party sources, though. An article which consists of nothing but facts verified by primary sources is not based on independent, third-party sources. There's a level of primary sourcing that's acceptable and even necessary. Entire articles that consist of a list of disjoint facts sourced to primary sources are way beyond that acceptable level.—Kww(talk) 20:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 23:10, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The words of the prophets are written on the subway walls... now, which subway d'ya think??? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:12, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The topic is too substantial for a useful merge, and will be easier to develop separately. I think almost everyone here except possibly the nom is convinced that the material is appropriate. and kww's argument can be met by better sourcing.The content of an article does not have to meet the requirements fro mblp or WP:GNG; verifiability is sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 02:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • My concern can not be met by "better sourcing". It's been built on an improper foundation, in that the article is not based on material found in independent sources, it has been based on material found in primary sources. Even if someone managed to find a review of "American Dragon" that mentioned that "Jake" sometimes "rides in the subway to get around", that wouldn't be a source that indicated that Jake riding the subway is in any way relevant to the concept of the NYC subway's impact on popular culture. There's nothing here that is worth saving, much less "substantial". "Substantial" and "bloated" are distinct concepts, and this thing is just bloated.—Kww(talk) 04:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • DGG, I disagree that you have discounted GNG. For an article to exist, it needs to be notable, not just verifiable. Otherwise we would have articles like Wooden telegraph poles in popular culture, which would list every show ever made because they all feature telegraph poles at some stage. The Legendary Ranger's suggestion above seems like a sensible solution IMHO. 1292simon (talk) 08:21, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lori Shemek, PhD

Lori Shemek, PhD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unremarkable author of weight-loss book. The sources are weak, at best, for "an internationally known health and weight loss expert". Appears to fail WP:GNG. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 06:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 06:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for your input on this and adjustments are already in process. I've added another media source and will locate others. Bobchoat (talk) 07:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would be better if any of these media appearances were reliable sources for anything other than the fact that she appeared on them. The best claim at notability - that she is a best-selling author - is still unsourced. A source confirming sales figures and which best-seller lists it was on would count for more than another entry in a list of media outlets that realized they could save money if they laid off their expensive news staff and ran infomercials on their morning shows. Kilopi (talk) 11:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't get where you believe she was doing infomercials. These are talk shows, not infomercials. And the same with the recommendation from The Huffington Post using her as a source. How about her being quoted in regarding her expertise, would that count? Bobchoat (talk) 14:22, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Bob, do you mind if I ask if you are connected to the subject of this biography in some way? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I know they're not called infomercials, but I'm alleging that they might not be much more better than infomercials in terms of reliability. She may have been invited to do interviews on the basis of her media-friendliness, accepted on the condition that the hosts plug her book, without much effort invested in fact-checking the biography her publicist sent over. That's not a huge problem right now since they're only being used as primary sources for the uncontroversial fact that she was there. I was just worried and wanted to warn you in advance that the other media sources you alluded to might not cut it if used as a secondary source for something more meaningful and notability-inducing like the fact that she is a best-selling author. Kilopi (talk) 16:39, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Being quoted is a source by the person, not a source about the person. What are needed for a biographical article on Wikipedia are multiple published works, by independent people with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy, that document the subject's life and works in depth. You can make a good argument for keeping by simply pointing to some. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 19:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Sorry, have to go with the nom here. I'm afraid a single self-published book doesn't cut it. I encourage a resubmission once the bibliography is better established. Oh No! It's Faustus37! it is what it is - speak at the tone 07:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SPAM, WP:BLP, WP:UPANDCOMING, WP:CRYSTAL, and WP:MILL. This is a very ordinary person -- there are myriads of PhDs, and thousands of health books published every year. Posting the degree in the title is a clear sign the article is likely to be crap. 19:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 16:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Sevi

Michael Sevi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable biography. Fails WP:GNG with no Google News search or Google News Archive search hits that constitute significant and independent coverage from a reliable source. In my opinion, the subject fails WP:POLITICIAN but depending on your interpretation, may satisfy point one. The point is vague regarding a "statewide office" and where in hierarchy the line is drawn. I feel that it's referring to an elected official and would not reach the "director of cabinet affairs". OlYeller21Talktome 05:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted: it was a textbook A7 case. Nyttend (talk) 03:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fix it with frosting

Fix it with frosting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is non-notable. May be written by proprietor. wia (talk) 02:54, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The subject doesn't appear notable and the username suggests a conflict of interest. -- Patchy1 02:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) -- Cheers, Riley 00:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Masters of the Dark Arts

Masters of the Dark Arts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No assertion of significance or evidence of notability per WP:NALBUMS. The article is completely unreferenced. - MrX 01:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 00:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maxxsonics

AfDs for this article:
Maxxsonics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Page describes small, non-notable company, content is a sub-brand list and list of key employees. Most contributions to page by single-purpose account. Company is looking for new editor for this page: [41]. W\|/haledad (Talk to me) 00:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Company is not seeking a new editor for this page, they are seeking an editor to work on a Coconut Water project that is not related to Maxxsonics. I have this direct from the Marketing Director H. Christopher Parvin. He chose to post without creating a new profile until they decide whether to go forward with that project.
  • This is not a non-notable company as they are a major brand distributor and manufacturer of audio electronics that sells multiple product lines in multiple countries. The firm is waiting until the annual CES (consumer electronics show) in January to update product lines and website. They have contacted me and asked me to hold off on updating more content until after the launch at CES. If the company is looking for a new editor of this page they will contact me directly as they have done in the past to provide licensed artwork and requested revisions to same. Please do not delete this page as it will be updated as the company increases their internet presence. Thank You. Gmuth71 (talk) 01:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)Wikipedia user Gmuth71[reply]
Dude, you really need to have a read of WP:COI, WP:PROMO, WP:N, WP:RS and WP:CORPDEPTH. Being a paid editor for the company or being asked directly by the company to edit their Wikipedia article (and only their article) is an obvious conflict of interest which is always strongly discouraged. You're unlikely to get very far with the argument that editors here should "hold off" on discussing an article's deletion because the company wants you to add more information about its new product lines. Stalwart111 02:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Duuude - I am not a paid editor and I am not asking anyone to hold off the discussion, I am responding to the notion that the page isn't well filled in by pointing out that the company and its product line will be changing after CES in January. When did wikipedia change from being a free site for all to post factual information into a judgmental 'my contributions are better than your contributions' club of wiki-snobs? I'd love to contribute more on wiki but right now I hold 3 jobs...in reality......outside the interweb. Thanks. Gmuth71 (talk) 00:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia didn't change - Wikipedia has never been the place to promote a business, whether you are being paid to do so or your are being asked to do so as a volunteer. Stalwart111 01:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Providing factual information is not promotion, there is a vast differentiation between promotional literature and fact. Are you sure you understand wikipedia or are you having a bitter moment because this page is factual. Witch hunt anyone? Gmuth71 (talk) 02:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Providing factual information can be promotional and this is a great example. WP:PROMO is as much about context as it is about content and goes hand-in-hand with WP:NOTHERE. Factual is one thing - an encyclopaedic summary of the company's history, product lines, key people, financial history, important breakthroughs, etc. Promotion is another - dot-point lists of company products, logos with direct links to product promotional pages and very little encyclopaedic information. This article represents the latter. I don't doubt the information is factual, in fact I'm sure it is. But it is not presented in an encyclopaedic fashion from a non-promotional neutral point of view. Those are not reasons to delete (and you'll notice I've not actually "voted" for deletion) but if the article is not cleaned up you'll have a tough time convincing other editors that this is a good faith attempt to build Wikipedia. Stalwart111 02:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a sign of good faith, I've had a crack at editing the article to bring it into line with Wikipedia's manuals of style - removing BOLD headings, direct links to company sites from within the article, bold and italic names of products (just not necessary) and some dot-point style "information" from each of the sub-sections. I've also created a new "history" section. These articles can often be saved and this is a fairly large company that would seem to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. But pictogramming a company press release and calling it a Wikipedia article will not get you very far. Stalwart111 03:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank You Stalwart for your editing for WP:MOS and providing some useful feedback. This admitted wiki-noob is happy to take constructive criticism under advisement. Gmuth71 (talk) 03:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I would again, though, counsel against editing with a conflict of interest. This is strongly discouraged for a range of reasons. Hiring editors or giving instructions to editors or using Wikipedia to promote or raise awareness of a company is always frowned upon. If you really are in contact with the company's marketing director (as you suggest above) then I would strongly counsel you to advise him not to "engage" Wikipedia in that way. It can only end badly for him, the company and probably for you. Stalwart111 03:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, CES is not a listed exhibitor but will be exhibiting in the area directly surrounding the CES show. I have queried the company for further details. Whaledad, clearly you are not versed in the audio electronics industry. Gmuth71 (talk) 00:44, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you care to peruse the information, here are several resources supporting Maxxsonics participation in CES 2013 as well as the upgrading of the company's several products and product lines. Maxxsonics 2013 CES Launch Activities, 12 Volt News Article 'Maxxsonics Welcomes All, CES 2013 Events, CE Outlook Article, Maxxsonics collaborates with West Coast Customs to Provide Amps and Speakers Under the West Coast Customs Brand Name Gmuth71 (talk) 00:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I take serious offense to your claim that my contributions here show that I'm not versed in the audio electronics industry. More important however is your claim that your links show that Maxxsonics is participating in CES 2013. Your links ONLY show that Maxxsonics is in Las Vegas at the time of CES 2013 and is organizing a few gatherings close to CES 2013, thereby flagrantly abusing the CES trademark and logo. I hope you understand (and make your buddy at Maxxsonics understand) that this is a serious faux pas for which CES could potentially claim a large amount in damages. W\|/haledad (Talk to me) 22:40, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A Google News search[42] reveals the subject could squeak by with a very small article that passes WP:V, but the current article is WP:NOT as a directory of product listings and promotion. It could be a decent 3-paragraph article. In these cases, editors will most likely take the path of least resistance, to delete the article until an impartial editor takes an interest, rather than deal with COI issues on such a small article. Unless of course the AfD process itself makes an editor take an interest in improving it in the interest of saving the article. CorporateM (Talk) 19:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It would appear as though it matters not if I as the original author would make edits to trim the article and make it more conforming to the points made in this discussion, although if a consensus would allow that in order to consider not deleting the article, I will gladly make such efforts in the next week as time allows. IF no, please advise and I will heed the advice and suggestions during future edits of other topics (again as time allows). Thanks Gmuth71 (talk) 01:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:17, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
'non-notable' comment is a restatement of original author of this deletion discussion article and has been successfully disproved by the same discussion above. All sources are non-SM generated and independent and additional sources have been added to the discussion above. Would disagree with the 'SPA' accusation but have nothing to support that at this time due to the constraints of time and other responsibility this author must tend to. Gmuth71 (talk) 14:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see where notability has been proven. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:01, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A quick search through ProQuest Newsstand revealed the following sources, in addition to the ones already used in the current WP entry:
    • Sudick, Jennifer (1 Mar 2006). "Maxxsonics goal: Stay under the radar to do well in market". Daily Herald.
    • Pohl, Kimberly (24 Dec 2005). "Mobile sound system company stays on the move". Daily Herald.
Because reliable, independent, secondary sources provide significant coverage (albeit at a local level), the company meets WP:ORG. Even if the article was edited by an SPA with a COI, that's not grounds for deletion. Instead, the article should be tagged for further editing by an unbiased user. Edge3 (talk) 03:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WilyD 12:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mackensen (talk) 15:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Highest-grossing films in overseas markets

Highest-grossing films in overseas markets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails general notabilty criteria. Uses the global chart at Box Office Mojo to construct a list of "highest overseas grossers". There is plenty of RS coverage of the US and worldwide charts to establish them individually as notable topics, but the "overseas" chart is just a by-product of these two charts i.e. it is not notable in its own right, since it is contextually dependent on the notablity of the other two charts. It exists solely to offer perspective on the US box office and how much of the global market it accounts for, so it doesn't makes sense to just list it on its own.

There are inherent WP:WORLDVIEW problems with the scope of the article too, since there is an "overseas" chart for every national chart. Betty Logan (talk) 04:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As it stands it is not a list of US film exports, it's a box-office chart derived from subtracting the US box-office from the global box-office. A list of US film exports wouldn't include foreign films, which the BOM chart does do. I wouldn't actually oppose a list of exports, but that would involve a fundamental change to the scope of the article. Betty Logan (talk) 07:08, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I was thinking they were all considered American productions. If "Lord of the Rings" is considered a New Zealand movie (not sure if it is) it would be kind of silly to compare its overseas gross to an American movie's. Kitfoxxe (talk) 07:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's a very confused list, in fact I'm not completely sure what it is doing. If you look at this chart, you will see that the Wikipedia chart doesn't include the Ice Age movies that are completely American produced, even though it includes the American produced Alice in Wonderland which grossed less (8, 9 and 10 on BOM chart). On the other hand, it includes the Harry Potter movies which are classified by the American Film Institute as US/UK co-productions, but not Skyfall which is classified as a US/UK co-production. Much of this could be cleared up though if it were converted to a list of US exports, since there would be a clearly defined scope for the list then. I'd be ok with keeping it as a list of exports, but that decision is down to the AfD process. Betty Logan (talk) 07:43, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merging it into List of highest-grossing films isn't really appropriate because that article focuses exclusively on worldwide figures. Adding a list of figures that are basically the worldwide figures with the American portion subtracted doesn't make any sense, because then it wouldn't be a worldwide chart. Why not add a list of figures with the European market removed? or the Asian markets? I don't see why we should compromise the WP:WORLDVIEW of an FA rated article just to accommodate indiscriminate data. Betty Logan (talk) 19:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There seems to be some confusion about what this data actually is. This data is basically a calculation by which the US box office grosses at List of highest-grossing films in Canada and the United States are subtracted from the worldwide box office grosses at List of highest-grossing films. That is basically all it is: this chart is just the result of an arithmetic operation on two sets of data that already exist on Wikipedia. The data was obtained from Box Office Mojo (an American box office tracker), where it primarily serves to show how well a film performs in the United States compared to everywhere else. The data in itself is meaningless without the US data for comparison, which is why I nominated this article for deletion. There have been two suggestions made besides deletion:
Out of the two options I think the first is preferable, since you can at least make a case a list of exports is notable, and there is some definite inclusion criteria. As for merging into List of highest-grossing films, I don't think it's a good idea since all the data at that article are global figures, so merging would effectively introduce an American perspective into an article with worldwide scope. The problem though is that the creator of the article has been indefinitely blocked and won't be around to develop the article should the first option be selected. If editors still find the second option preferable, I suggest closing this dicussion as a "keep" and starting a 'merge' discussion at List of highest-grossing films where the editors involved in that article can decide whether to merge or not. While I appreciate it is only a list of numbers to some people, it is an FA rated list and in the top 1000 articles on Wikipedia so any major decisions affecting the scope of the article need to be carefully examined. Betty Logan (talk) 01:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This keeps coming up, but no-one has explained yet why it would be a good idea to merge into the List of highest grossing films. The List of highest grossing films adopts a global view and explicitly just uses worldwide data i.e. that is the criteria for the inclusion of the data on the chart. Why would we stick a chart of non-worldwide data that adopts the view of one particular country, into such an article? The scope of this data is clearly different to the scope of the List of highest grossing films. If you believe the data is actually notable then vote to keep it, but if you want to merge it will please explain why it would be appropriate to merge it into List of highest grossing films? Betty Logan (talk) 14:28, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a valid argument. Bias is resolved by unbiased articles. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename. It is pretty standard in US and Canadian sources to cover box office grosses in terms of US/Canada gross, gross from everywhere except the US and Canada, and worldwide gross. For example, www.boxofficemojo.com and www.the-numbers.com, two box office tracking websites, run weekly columns discussing box office gross from non-US/Canada markets ([43] and [44] appear to be the most recent of those articles at the time I write this). The box office numbers in the article aren't merely created by subtracting the US/Canada gross from the worldwide gross, but are a subject of discussion on there own. Even though the subject is only discussed in US/Canadian sources (as far as I know), I believe it is a notable topic that passes WP:GNG. WP:WORLDVIEW is not a valid reason to delete the article, as that essay is in no way saying that subjects should be deleted due to recieving coverage in only one or two countries. A topic covered by reliable sources is appropirate for inclusion in Wikipedia even if those sources are only from a couple countries. However, WP:WORLDVIEW is a good reason not to merge this list with List of highest-grossing films, as this list is about a topic of interest primarily to the US and Canada and primarily covered in US/Canadian sources, and merging it into an article with worldwide scope would not make sense to me. I would oppose merging the list, and instead think it should be kept as its own article. Also, about the name of the article, it is clearly mischosen. The topic as covered in US/Canadian sources is the gross box office of films originating in any country, but only from movie theaters in countries other than the United States and Canada. The article should be renamed to make that more clear, and an explanation of the exact scope should be added to the lead of the article. A lot of the "delete" !votes seem to be focusing on the confusion arising from the topic's name, but a poor name is an easily fixed problem and not a valid reason for deleting an article (admittedly, the intended scope of the article was probably not clear to anyone who doesn't regularly read US/Canadian box office sources, but hopefully it is clear from the sources I linked to . . . again, this is a pretty standard way of presenting box office number in US/Canadian sources). Calathan (talk) 23:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, if I understand you (only just, I think), this is a technical subdivision of data where the topic from an ordinary human's point of view (say, a WP reader's) is worldwide viewing of films, but for reasons incalculable, perhaps Americentricity, the data are split into odd lumps, and this is about one such lump. If so, the !votes are right but for the wrong reason. However I suspect that any duplication of this lump into a WP article is based on WP:ITEXISTS and WP:ITSUSEFUL, which WP doesn't buy. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm kind of baffled as to why you think WP:ITEXISTS applies here. The whole point of what I wrote is that this is a subject written about in reliable sources (the two weekly articles I mentioned). I'm not saying it should be kept merely because it exists, but because it has significant coverage in reliable sources, and thus passes WP:GNG. Calathan (talk) 15:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is probably covered by WP:NOT#NEWSREPORTS. Both BOM and The Numbers follow up their domestic reports with the overseas reports as part of their global box office coverage, but while they have U.S. (nominal and adjusted) and the worldwide charts (see BOM and The Numbers), they don't actually include "overseas" charts; the concept doesn't seem to exist as a data unit in its own right. A chart is basically a list article right? As per WP:LISTN a list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. In other words, for this chart to be notable we should be able to track down an analogous version of it somewhere, just like we can do with the worldwide and U.S. charts. If we can't fulfil that criteria it should be deleted. Betty Logan (talk) 15:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think WP:NOT#NEWSREPORTS is applicable here either. These aren't just reports on single events, but regular columns that provide analysis. About actually finding the "overseas" or "international" chart, I tried looking for that and so far couldn't find it. I'm very certain that IMDB had such a chart as of a few years ago (it had three charts, US/Canada grosses, non-US/Canada grosses, and worldwide grosses). However, when I checked yesterday, I couldn't find any charts of top box office grosses on IMDB at all. Either I just couldn't find them, or they got rid of them after they aquired Boxofficemojo. On Boxofficemojo, I could find highest non-US/Canada gross by year, but I didn't find highest non-US/Canada gross of all time. The articles regularly make reference to films being among the highest grossing of all time outside the US, so I feel certain that such a chart must exist somewhere (i.e. the person writing the articles has access to it). I'll try to find it again when I get a chance, since I would be very surprised if it isn't available somewhere. Regardless though, the subject of how much films gross outside the US/Canada seems to be a notable topic in my opinion . . . I'm not sure though that this article would really work well as anything except a list, so having a clear list to directly source it to would certainly help. Calathan (talk) 16:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It turns out that IMDB does still have their lists of highest grossing films in the US, non-US, and worldwide (I'm pretty sure when they say US they actually include Canada, as I think that is the normal way of reporting numbers in the US and Canada). The "non-US" list is here [45], and looks to be more up to date than the current Wikipedia article. For Boxofficemojo, I still couldn't find such a list. They report non-US/Canada numbers for each weekend [46], the highest non-US and Canada opening weekends of all time [47], and the highest non-US/Canada grosses for each year [48], but apparently do not have an all time highest grossing non-US/Canada list. I don't know if the IMDB list would be appropriate for sourcing this article . . . I know in general IMDB isn't used as a source, but I don't think that list is user submitted content, so maybe it would be acceptable (it would seem odd to say it isn't acceptable but Boxofficemojo is, when Boxofficemojo is a subsidiary of IMDB). Calathan (talk) 23:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flyscreen

Flyscreen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This band that was conceived in Newport, Wales doesn't appear to pass WP:N or WP:BAND. Source searching in Gbooks and Gnews archives is yielding only very passing mentions. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:09, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:42, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The two existing sources in the article are insufficient. One is a singular mention that fails WP:SIGCOV, the other is part of a database, which fails WP:RS. The link provided in this AFD is fine but local in nature. The other sources found are myspace, etc. Another band that doesn't have a facebook fan page, which of course is fine, but tells me that that more sources in the future are not likely. I couldn't even find anyone that uploaded any of their songs to youtube. Not official metrics, granted, but revealing nonetheless. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete misses WP:MUSIC by a hair, just one major-label album. Although we aren't generally supposed to give future possibilities much weight if any, in something this borderline I might be inclined to tip the scales if it looked like more notability were forthcoming (if they'd signed again and had new stuff coming out) but that doesn't appear to be the case. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No argument advanced that the artist meets WP:BASIC or other critieria. (That a reliable source indicated by the nominator is a deadlink is not by itself a concern with regard to policy, but the lack of a second reliable source does speak to WP:GNG.) j⚛e deckertalk 19:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

G o 2

G o 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A topic about a Christian hip hop performer and psalmist that appears to fail WP:N and WP:BASIC. After several searches in GNews archives and GBooks, not finding any coverage. The only independent reliable source, already in the article, is a dead link. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:19, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Which dead link is the reliable source? הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 01:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This one: http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/dpp/good_day_atl/Go2_Puts_Out_Positive_Message_081809 (Fox news). Northamerica1000(talk) 03:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 00:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 16:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flowparty

Flowparty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A topic about an unnamed Swedish musical artist who goes by the name "Flowparty" that appears to fail WP:BASIC. Not finding any independent reliable sources to qualify the notability of this person for a standalone article on Wikipedia. This Discogs source in the article is essentially just a directory listing on a commercial website. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:19, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 19:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2013 end of year rugby union tests

2013 end of year rugby union tests (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Disputed Prod. Unable to find sources to establish notability. Nouniquenames 15:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme 00:29, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:19, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 00:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Why has the article been nominated for deletetion when fixtures are getting announced? Rugby.change (talk) 03:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Naut Humon

The result was Speedy keep as nominator has withdrawn the nomination (Non-admin closure). Forgot to put name (talk) 15:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Naut Humon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

article shows no indication of notability, in content or in references provided. the template doesnt add to his notability. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:43, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Leading member of a band with two albums on a notable record label (Ralph Records). I added references to further reinforce his notability.--Soul Crusher (talk) 07:07, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, i am leaning towards keep at this point, but i wont withdraw my nomination, as i want at least a few other people to weigh in on this so far marginally notable person. i am aware that Ralph Records is a very important, if not huge, indy label, but i didnt see his notability within the label.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:44, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:52, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Israel Weapon Industries. MBisanz talk 23:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jericho B

Jericho B (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While this firearm appears to exist, the topic may fail WP:N. Several custom GNews archives and GBooks searches (e.g. [49], [50]) have not provided coverage in reliable sources. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:49, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go Phightins! 22:34, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a very sensible solution. Amended my !vote. Stalwart111 02:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - My searches provided nothing and a redirect would be appropriate but I have one question. Israel Weapon Industries doesn't currently mention this pistol but it mentions the Jericho 941, a different product, so how would we redirect to Israel Weapon Industries? This article claims it was in service from 1970 to 1975 and considering this is an Israeli product, sources are probably not English. A search for "Jericho B" at the company's website provided nothing and the service duration is probably true because this product isn't listed in their current line. SwisterTwister talk 21:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Search results suggest the Jericho 941 is the current model, with the F and PL and PSL variants. All are in the "Jericho family". See this brochure. The brochure talks about the long history of the various Jericho models (without mentioning specific historical variants) and in this intro the company claims credit for the whole "Jericho family", so I think it is safe to accept that current Jerichos and previous Jerichos are all IWI products and can be redirected there. This is just a blog but it gives some more info for the sake of general interest. Stalwart111 22:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 16:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Gottschalk Ascher

Isaac Gottschalk Ascher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ANYBIO. The single working reference shows that he was among many members of committees who founded a neighborhood temple and a young men's society. Google search returns nothing but links back to WP content. Modern.Jewelry.Historian (talk) 01:36, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this counts for notability, but he was important enough to be mentioned in at least three different books on the history of the Jews in Canada (two admittedly by the same author). הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 05:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 00:08, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 16:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Financial Planning & Analysis

Financial Planning & Analysis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable, single reference - seems to be an advertisement for a consultant. Each section is in another article somewhere, or not encyclopedic at all. Modern.Jewelry.Historian (talk) 02:41, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 00:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zooko Wilcox-O'Hearn

Zooko Wilcox-O'Hearn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet GNG. His bio data is sourced to his own website. The triangle he created has no RS to support its notability. Everything blue-linked in the article is not notable either. I assume his claim to fame was that he "co-developed" something with a founder of PGP, but in fact, he is part of a much larger development team, not a one-man show, and the source never claimed that. In short, he's another software guy amongst a lot of other software guys. MSJapan (talk) 01:23, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think that the "not inherited" argument could be applied to his ZRTP participation, but he is the leader of the Tahoe-LAFS project, and Zooko's triangle is named after him. Nikita Borisov (talk) 22:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this is a misapplication of WP:NOTINHERITED. If you look at the examples of fallacious notability arguments there, none are of the form "X has done notable work Y, which supports X being notable", because there's nothing fallacious about that. They are all about inheritance of notability by much more tenuous connections. --David-Sarah Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 23:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve. Agreed that notability for the projects listed so far is not inherited, but his contributions to (and notability in) computer networking are well supported by hits from Google Books and Google Scholar (try searching for "Bryce Wilcox" as well as the name in the article's title). Needs expansion and referencing. Altered Walter (talk) 09:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is someone who is fairly well known in networking and security circles. JASpencer (talk) 11:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If you want to argue that Tahoe-LAFS and the triangle are not notable, I think it would make more sense to nominate those articles for deletion first. Nikita Borisov (talk) 22:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve. Zooko's triangle certainly is notable and its referencing can be improved. As far as I understand, Zooko did co-design the ZRTP protocol (with PRZ and Colin Plumb), contrary to the statement that he is "only" one of a large development team. He is also is one of the two original developers of Tahoe-LAFS, and still one of four core developers (defined as having direct commit authority). --David-Sarah Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 23:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, provided someone is willing to improve it significantly. The article as presented does not present impact worthy of an encyclopedia entry. Some serious references would help, like papers referencing his work. -- Taral (talk) 23:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, conditional on better sources. I'm ignoring the false nomination logic of (lack of) inheritance from existing articles. Just taking this bio - sources do not meet WP:BASIC, but meets WP:ANYBIO 2. for Zooko's triangle etc. Widefox; talk 23:28, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 02:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Kozhin

Simon Kozhin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject of this article has no particular notability, certainly not enough by WP standards. Furthermore, the article is even more problematic due to the fact that it was started by the artist himself under the username User:Onzart and he has continued to edit the article under User:SLKozhin and possibly other usernames and IPs, all of which clearly violates WP policy, not to mention basic etiquette and a host of other guidelines. Laval (talk) 17:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Probable delete The article is basically a CV, with no evidence of reviews or critical attention. I can't find any good online sources (although I don't understand Russian). The sources in the article are generally self-published (I assume the cited WHO IS WHO takes money from subjects), although the bibliography may contain a reliable source, even though I'm skeptical of a book called One Thousand Russian artists. Looking at Kozhin's art, it seems far from the contemporary art mainstream and therefore I don't imagine him getting coverage in the mainstream western art press. Unless there are Russian sources, I have to conclude he's non notable based on (1) my inability to find sources aside from self-published content on Google, Google Books or Google News (2) the poor existing sources given in the article (3) the unlikeliness of contemporary art publications devoting any space to Kozhin (4) he's apparently done nothing outside art that might be notable. Having works in major international collections is grounds for notability, and the mentioned collections aren't world-famous but maybe they have a degree of prestige in Russia? --Colapeninsula (talk) 18:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree if there were more sources. Do you have any? --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Literaturnaya Gazeta articles cited appear to be good sources. I'll take another look tomorrow, as my Russian is a bit too rusty for me to be able to exercise it properly at nearly midnight. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:47, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the 2007 Literaturnaya Gazeta article is significant detailed coverage in a full article of one of the most prestigious Russian magazines. the 2009 article is an interview with him about other projects, not his art. DGG ( talk ) 05:18, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Bruce Conner. MBisanz talk 16:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rat Bastard Protective Association

Rat Bastard Protective Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

tongue in cheek "association" that was apparently just a name for a group of artist friends. no work associated with the group specifically. artist is notable, of course. I dont see enough here to even mention it seriously at his article. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:12, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and merge the sourced content (the first paragraph) to Bruce Conner. Discussions about the Rat Bastard Protective Association and its historical members do show up frequently in works about Conner (sometimes referring to the "Society" instead of "Association"), and I think this belongs in his article.[51] I haven't found any RS substantiation for the stuff (some of it previously deleted) about LG Williams and the current existence of the "Association". --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That line is both a BLP failure and a verifiability failure in any event and I'm gonna nuke it now. Carrite (talk) 17:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Northamerica1000 does provide some sourcing. I don't think a Delete is viable based on that, nor am I sure that it's sufficient for a Keep of a standalone piece. I still believe this would best be a section in Conner's biography with a redirect. Carrite (talk) 17:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge/delete - Even charitably reading the sourcing included, at best makes this an informal group of friends/colleages who made a joking name for themselves. It is not an actual organization. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Westfield Group shopping centres in Australia . MBisanz talk 00:06, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Westfield Mount Druitt

Westfield Mount Druitt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Both of these guidelines explicitly state that if a shopping centre has not received significant coverage in reliable sources then we should not have an article on that topic. The only coverage I can find is crime-related incidents as well as trivial mentions, which is not per WP:GNG and WP:ORG enough to contain an article on this topic. Any relevant information is adequately covered in the respective article about the area. Till 23:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep (striking poor-taste joke) Best. AFD. Ever. - Till, are you Australian? If so, you understand why picking on the people of Mount Druitt is particularly cruel. If not then, my friend, you have just earned yourself honorary Australian citizenship. Without WP:OTHERSTUFF'ing this too severely, all Australian Westfield shopping centres have articles and most have far less coverage that this one (see Westfield Chatswood, where there has never been a brawl the likes of which we've seen at Mount Druitt). If it doesn't meet the criteria then we should talk about getting rid of it, but leaving {{Westfield Australia}} with one red-link seems a bit harsh, especially this one. Thoughts? Stalwart111 03:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shopping centres are not notable because of their size. Shopping centres are notable if they have been the subject of significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources. Till 05:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm inclined to agree that they shouldn't be; that's just the "common outcome". I suppose there might also be an assumption that any large regional shopping centre would have at least received significant coverage when it was being proposed or when it opened, even if that was so far back that the coverage isn't online. Per WP:NOTTEMP, that old coverage would still count toward notability. Stalwart111 05:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That may be the case, but WP:ORG explicitly states that all content must be verifiable, and if no independent, third-party, reliable sources can be found on a topic, then Wikipedia should not have an article on it. In other words, unless reliable sources are brought forward, we should not have an article on this topic. Till 05:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:13, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:13, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete found some articles on a gang fight, and a machete attack, and an article on it being sold? (WRAP - Westfield Trust & SAS buy Westfield Mt Druitt for $236m. 18 October 2000 Australian Associated Press)..not really indepth coverage of it, in any insightful fashion. Couldn't see any articles on it being built Deathlibrarian (talk) 14:07, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect into List of Westfield Group shopping centres in Australia. It is still a reasonable search term and at least a redirect will get the reader to the proper area with some information about the center. Since we serve the reader, a redirect serves them best. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • List of Westfield Group shopping centres in Australia is a bad target because that article merely lists the existing Westfield shopping centres as opposed to actually covering them. There is also barely any relevant information to merge, and the topic is adequately covered on the article about the area. Page statistics show that this article gets as little as one view in a day, therefore a redirect is not crucial. WP:N recommends deletion of topics that fail notability. Till 03:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm pretty much on the fence about whether this is notable or not, but I do think that Till's recent deletion of relevant and sourced material that might tend to show notability was inappropriate, especially in the middle of the AfD, and I have restored it.--Arxiloxos (talk) 04:08, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Your addition and restoration of material that violates Wikipedia's WP:NOTNEWS policy was inappropriate. Read WP:ORG and WP:NOT next time. Till 04:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Till, when you are nominating an article, it is important that you err on the conservative side when it comes to editing the article. That means leaving in things that might violate NOTNEWS and trusting that we aren't fools and can separate the wheat from the chaff without help. AFD isn't about winning, it is about discussing the best outcome. The list may be a less than prime target, but it is still the best place because the reader would be taken to a page that has at least some basic and accurate information. And let us not forget that the only reason we are here at all is for the benefit of the reader. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:22, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Arxiloxos (talk · contribs) thinks that the information violating WP:NOTNEWS shows notability which is completely wrong. He obviously doesn't know anything about WP:ORG and WP:NOT which he should have read before coming here. If anything, the article's best redirect target is the Mount Druitt article because that's where the shopping centre is actually discussed. But like said before, a redirect serves no purpose as the page gets one view in a day. There are no readers that would be benefited because there aren't any. Till 00:13, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • Sometimes, you just have to leave it to the closer and the community and accept what they conclude. Bludgeoning the point doesn't help. It isn't necessary that everyone be convinced of your point of view. It isn't a debate, it isn't about winning or losing, it's a discussion. And we don't know how many readers will look for it next year anyway. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • I initiated this discussion and I have a right to respond to people's comments. It is unfair for the editors' hard work of building strong arguments for deletion to be flushed down the drain. Till 03:20, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep because, as Stalwart111 points out, this is part of well-organized existing comprehensive coverage of Westfield's clearly notable activities in Australia. Who is it helping to generate new redlinks in these circumstances? Alternatively, redirect as suggested by Dennis Brown. Till's arguments against that redirect are unpersuasive. The list can (and probably should) be expanded with information. And, if the article gets one view a day, so what? The point of an encyclopedia is to accumulate information so it's there when someone needs it; it's not all going to be popular. --Arxiloxos (talk)
    • Unfortunately for you, Stalwart111's rationale relies heavily on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, a poor argument to keep an article. As a keep !voter you have an obligation to demonstrate how this topic meets WP:GNG and WP:ORG by providing evidence. So far, none of the keep !voters have actually brought sources forward that would indicate that this topic meets notability guidelines. Unless multiple, reliable sources are brought forward, this article should be deleted. Till 10:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of Westfield Group shopping centres in Australia per Dennis Brown, and re-work that target article. Here's what I have in mind:
  • As has been pointed out above, that's a list article, and as such not the best target for a merge.
  • There's already a larger list article, List of Westfield Group shopping centres with the Australian list broken out to a separate list article.
  • As has also been pointed out above, there are several other articles in the Australia list that really ought also to be merged.
  • A list article (as has also been pointed out above), tends to nudge editors toward creating articles to "fix" the redlinks.
  • Westfield Group will undoubtedly keep on building more malls, with many of them non-notable for years or indefinitely.
So one solution to all this would be to convert List of Westfield Group shopping centres in Australia from a list article to Westfield Group shopping centres in Australia. Merge in any other articles on non-notable Australian malls to that new "container" article. For the articles on really notable malls, we simply link with a {{main}} tag as appropriate. We'd then have an article in which to write about new Westfield malls in Australia, without adding yet another redlink to a list, or creating yet another article about yet another low-notability mall.
Getting consensus for merge and then merging the low-notability articles will take a bit of work, but not too much. I'd be happy to help with all that, if anyone thinks this proposal is a good idea. Altered Walter (talk) 21:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 02:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adams dry fly

Adams dry fly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

DIY article with inadequate references and no context, not to mention bad formatting FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 16:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Uncertain - It seems this may be commonly used for fly fishing as Google News provided several results but they wouldn't be much help. However, Google Books also found several results, particuarly this detailed book. I'm not an expert of fly fishing but if these results aren't sufficient, a selective merge to another article may be better (the Parachute Adams is currently briefly mentioned in Fly fishing. SwisterTwister talk 20:54, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I went ahead and added the single reference from SwisterTwister, which seems valid from a basic 'exists' standpoint, and removed the preparation section, per WP:NOT. I have absolutely no idea what this thing is, other than it's something used for fishing, but there you go. Perhaps a redirect would be more appropriate. §FreeRangeFrog 05:19, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:09, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to CleanMyMac. MBisanz talk 16:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MacPaw

MacPaw (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable company and adding small incrementto WP:CSB. Contested PROD. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 08:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain I've used this product regularly for some years (and no other) and if I bought an extra computer would happily pay for another copy. It certainly stands out from the crowd of similar apps for Mac and is notable for that reason alone. Is this just another instance of anti-Mac prejudice? Fighting words? I've been watching this proposal since it was put and had been pleased to see it lacked support. Eddaido (talk) 21:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or merge to CleanMyMac The company presently has one notable product, with a few variations. Two articles is excessive coverage. As the product is bette known than the company, that's where I 's suggest for the merged contents. DGG ( talk ) 02:57, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:09, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Stars Go Dim#History. MBisanz talk 16:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stars Go Dim (EP)

Stars Go Dim (EP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage of this EP. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:25, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:08, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 00:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Brunt

Hugh Brunt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ANYBIO. Single reference is to the website of the orchestra itself. Requires 3rd party citations to establish notability. The article basically states that this is a man with a job. Sorry. MJH (talk) 22:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Reverted to transwiki. Note that an article on Iouea the fossil sponge genus would be an entirely valid topic. The Bushranger One ping only 18:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Iouea

Iouea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced article with no evidence of notability Mikenorton (talk) 23:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have reverted some iouea.org spam (by the same IPv6 user) at List of modern channelled texts. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 03:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patchy1 12:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of minor Emmerdale characters (2009)#Angelica King per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Tragic as her death is, as as much as we might feel sympathy for her family, her very brief career fails WP:ENT. And despite claims below, with her now deceased, this is not a BLP1E... but coverage being only for her death makes this a WP:SINGLEEVENT. If anyone wishes this userfied for incoporation elsewhere, ping me. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie Firth

Sophie Firth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completing nomination on behalf of IP user 86.158.250.133 (talk). Reason given on talk page is: "I have nominated this article for deletion since I doubt it is notable." I remain neutral. jcgoble3 (talk) 00:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to List_of_minor_Emmerdale_characters_(2009)#Angelica_King - Indeed this is a tragic death but there isn't much to establish notability as she only had brief and minor work for Emmerdale. She received the most attention for her death than her career but this is understandable as her work was minor and soap opera baby actors rarely receive attention as it is. I would suggest mentioning her death at the character's page but I believe it may go astray from the purpose of the character's page. However, this is an interesting death so it may be worth noting. Either way, she was not a notable actress. SwisterTwister talk 00:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per SwisterTwister's rationale. Might could merge a line or two, but a stand alone article isn't really justified and sadly, there is little hope for expansion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you feel that way but Wikipedia must take things into consideration past personal feelings. I think all of the voters here acknowledge the girl's tragic death but that is not an excuse for notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WP:NOTMEMORIAL is not applicable, it's meant for people without reliable coverage of their deaths such as deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet [notability] requirements.. Diego (talk) 15:09, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The girl was not significant only for her death, but because she played a role in a notable series. This information should be kept, not deleted, just not necessarily as a stand-alone article. Also WP:BIO1E would be an argument to keep or redirect the article about the notable death (The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person); it's not a reason for deletion. Diego (talk) 15:09, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Only the Huffington Post could be considered a RS from those I've seen in the article - the One News Page is just a link to the Daily Mail article, and the others are clearly not RS. As to what I can find, [56] is a short article, as is [57]. I can't see her Emmerdale appearance being truly notable as she was just a baby, so this is really just a WP:BIO1E failure. I say Delete. Wikipedia doesn't have an article for every tragic death there is. Lukeno94 (talk) 11:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment above - failing WP:BIO1E is a reason to redirect or merge the content, not to delete it. Diego (talk) 15:12, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This MUST be notable. Sophie has made alot of British news headlines on Television and Newspapers and of-course she was an actress on Emmerdale which has won over 65 awards. Might I add to these IP adder's that (you) have added Sophie as a child actor which she is not as she isn't a male and also you added in Sophie's career section that her parent's are member's of Doncaster council, when I added a personal life section which you deleted. ActorBoss (talk) 12:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per SisterTwister's argument. Firth not especially notable in her own right; anyone seeking information on her is likely to do so in the context of Emmerdale, so information should be collected there. Ammodramus (talk) 13:58, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List_of_minor_Emmerdale_characters_(2009)#Angelica_King. I was the anonymous user who originally nominated this article for deletion. I do not know much about the deletion process, but it seems completely absurd to give this child an article. She was hardly notable enough whilst she was alive to have her own article: she played an extremely minor role in the soap. This would explain why the article was only created after her death. Unfortunately, incidents like this are all too common and it would be ridiculous to create an article every time this happens. A quick internet search sadly gives many similar cases (although, it is probably interesting to note that, at least from my quick searches, I can find absolutely nothing about this case on the websites of BBC News, The Telegraph, The Independent and The Guardian). I cannot see why an article should be made for this girl simply because of her small role in Emmerdale. Instead, I believe a few sentences should be added to the linked article. I certainly disagree with including something in Emmerdale#Disasters because this seems to involve fictional incidents within the soap. 86.158.250.133 (talk) 16:56, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have a point 86.158.250.133. I actually agree with you now on this matter. We can't create another article like Sophie if another very minor character passes away. Speaking off-topic for a minute, RIP to the little girl. ActorBoss (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:03, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • REdirect as suggested. A three-year old is unlikely to have played much of a part. She was a NN minor actress. Perhaps plain Delete. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The little girl's death, while undeniably tragic, is not singularly noteworthy enough to warrant an article, and the fact that she had no article prior to her death indicates a lack of notability during the short time she was alive. Even a redirect seems like too much, but a standalone article is certainly going overboard. 64.201.173.145 (talk) 00:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 00:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alexia Viruez

Alexia Viruez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ANYBIO, only Miss Universe gets an article historically, so WP:TOOSOON MJH (talk) 23:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bolivia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss Bolivia, and do the same for all beauty pageant contestant articles where the only justification is that they competed in a pageant and there are no other sources to indicate additional notability. Mabalu (talk) 11:08, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2012_December_14&oldid=529040361"