Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 January 6

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 5 January	7 January >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 20:22, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Ewin

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

~~Fails WP:NMMA JadeSnake (talk) 07:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]

Strikeout added because JadeSnake was a confirmed sockpuppet of an already banned user.Willdawg111 (talk) 20:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Fails WP:NMMA and seems to fail WP:GNG. Poison Whiskey 14:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NMMA with no fights for a top tier organization. Jakejr (talk) 03:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Has refs from the BBC and Sports Illustrated , as well as good quality refs here, here, here, and Especially here. Turns out he is a notorious criminal as well as a World Champion. He also would seem to be more notable in the UK, as well as this one, and this government article, and another about the ongoing criminal case I'll add these to the body of the article tommorow if they arent already there PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 09:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- MMAUniverse link is a dupicate of the "This is Glouchestershire" link (submitted by a user). Crown Protection Service link only mentions Ewin in 1 line in passing. Hasteur (talk) 00:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - The above sources are not strong enough to support {[WP:GNG]], as they only nibble around the edges of the subject (passing mentions or duplicates of each other) and do not qualify as real sourcing. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep On the bases of the nominator being proven to be a sock. Because of this consensus may be inaccurate and may lead to wrong course of action, if another user wants to nominate this page for deletion they may do so, but not under the current circumstances. I would also like to state that I will also vote to keep on the basis of WP:GNG, this person clearly passes as he has become somewhat infamous in this country and has had some strong articles on him as stated by PortlandOregon97217. Pound4Pound (talk) 22:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC) Pound4Pound blocked as a sock of the blocked BigzMMA ✍ Mtking ✉ 06:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Speedy keep is only applicable if it's a procedural fault in the nomination. JadeSnake is not a sock of a banned user, but a sock of an indefinitely blocked user. Even if the nominator was banned, the justification is quite clear. Hasteur (talk) 00:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Either this BLP is presented and judged on MMA grounds (which the article is supporting) or on WP:CRIMINAL (which the article does not support). Either way the nomination reason "Does not meet SNG WP:NMMA" is valid and based on the fact that the subject is incarcertaed and now awating conviction for annother drug offense seems unlikely that he will ever clear the WP:NMMA bar. Drug dealing escapades do not seem to clear the dual test for WP:CRIMINAL so still seeing this as a delete. Hasteur (talk) 00:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question- Does he not pass WP:GNG with all of the WP:SOURCES presented? I think he does by a fair margin PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 02:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. The sources are weak in the extreme. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails both WP:NMMA and WP:GNG. Mdtemp (talk) 17:16, 9 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. Michig (talk) 09:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Antony Rea

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

~~Fails WP:NMMA JadeSnake (talk) 07:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]

Strikeout added because JadeSnake was a confirmed sockpuppet of an already banned user.Willdawg111 (talk) 20:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG and WP:V. Sepulwiki (talk) 26:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA with no fights for a top tier organization. Doing electrical work, even on movies and well known videos, does not show notability because WP:NOTINHERITED. Jakejr (talk) 03:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NMMA. --LlamaAl (talk) 19:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Fails WP:NMMA and seems to fail WP:GNG. Poison Whiskey 12:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA and I don't see notability for anything else. Mdtemp (talk) 17:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NMMA --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:22, 13 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. Michig (talk) 09:32, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Ball (fighter)

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

~~Fails WP:NMMA JadeSnake (talk) 07:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]

Strikeout added because JadeSnake was a confirmed sockpuppet of an already banned user.Willdawg111 (talk) 20:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NMMA with no fights for a top tier promotion. Jakejr (talk) 03:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NMMA. --LlamaAl (talk) 19:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA. Mdtemp (talk) 17:37, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another fighter article being cleaned up after WP:NMMA was passed. Mkdw ^talk 04:23, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:nmma --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:23, 13 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. Michig (talk) 09:28, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-François Lénogue

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

~~Fails WP:NMMA JadeSnake (talk) 07:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]

Strikeout added because JadeSnake was a confirmed sockpuppet of an already banned user.

Strong Keep - is also a film actor and stuntman, MMA not sole basis for notability, fights for 1st and 2nd tier promotions. Sepulwiki (talk) 07:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment - How notable of an actor or stuntman is he? JadeSnake (talk) 23:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - He without a doubt passes WP:GNG and WP:V. He is very close to passing WP:NMMA. There is probably more general notability guidelines he passes due to his acting and stunt performing in movies that have been big in the box office. He may not pass WP:NMMA but passes other guidelines because of the movies he has been in. MMA is not the sole basis of notability and alot of users debating fail to say that. Your arguement would be like saying Jet Li's article should be deleted because his martial arts accomplishments do not pass WP:NMMA. Sepulwiki (talk) 23:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep based on the combination of two top-tier fights and his acting/stuntman career. Luchuslu (talk) 01:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NMMA and his acting career doesn't meet WP:ENT--not with roles such as guard, zombie, thug, boxer, etc. I don't see "significant roles in multiple notable films". Jakejr (talk) 03:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment His small roles and stunt coordination in box office hits in combination with his MMA fights warrants him an article. To think otherwise would be questionable. Sepulwiki (talk)

Delete Fails WP:NMMA as he hasn't had one professional fight for a top tier organization, little alone the three necessary to qualify under NMMA. Clearly fails WP:ENT as stunt men don't qualify and acting parts are even less than bit-part. So, for WP:GNG... can't find anything beyond the standard MMA stat sites. Bgwhite (talk) 06:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment PRIDE and Shooto are both top tier promotions, did you even read the article? stunt performing doesnt fall under WP:ENT. And as far as WP:GNG, his IMDB profile was the third that popped up in my search engine. Do you even know what your talking about Bgwhite?

Comment Please, do not belittle other editors. Keep it civil. Shooto fight was done as an amateur fight. IMDb is considered an unreliable reference and not eligible to be used under WP:GNG. It is unreliable as anybody can edit it. The same goes for Wikipedia refs. Bgwhite (talk) 18:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No BGwhite is correct to disregard that trash essay on notability. Leave it up to the individual to determine what is notable and what is not since WP:MMATIER is just an essay not a guideline like WP:GNG. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 11:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He is not disqualifying the essay. One of his Shooto bouts was really amateur (just check his record on Sherdog) and the other isn't considered top-tier at the current state of WP:MMATIER. The WP:NMMA guideline points directly to the essay, so it should be considered. Poison Whiskey 14:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unless its a Shooto fight with Anderson Silva or Hayato Sakurai then I generally disregard shooto. Seems bgwhite disregarded it too. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 09:39, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Being curious as to why you say his 14th pro fight under the Shooto banner is amatuer is not the same as belittling, do not twist and contort my comment Bgwhite.
Comment Profiles on both ESPN and The New York Times here 1, here 2
Delete He doesn't meet WP:NMMA. I can't dispute he's been in movies, which is all the sources support. The point is he's had very minor roles. I don't see notability for bit parts. Mdtemp (talk) 17:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Has fought for some notable organizations and fought many notable opponents, but he fails WP:NMMA and the article also seems to fail WP:GNG. Poison Whiskey 14:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA and I don't see how his stuntman/movie career meets any notability criteria. The article also needs better sources since the only two sources mentioned are his fight record at sherdog and IMDB (not RS). Papaursa (talk) 05:19, 12 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 Withdrawn (non-admin closure) JadeSnake (talk) 23:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zach Light

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

Fails WP:NMMA JadeSnake (talk) 07:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm sure you missed his 3 notable fights because they aren't recent, but he has UFC, WEC, and Strikeforce, so there shouldn't be any question about him meeting requirements. I had this happen, where I accidently missed a fight on somebody's record and when it was pointed out to me, I manned up, admitted I made a mistake and asked for help closing it out so people didn't have to waste their time with it. How about doing the right thing? Willdawg111 (talk) 18:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Actually I see strikeforce, WEC, and UFC. That makes 3 top tier fights. passes WP:NMMA PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 08:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Yes, this article meets WP:NMMA. Poison Whiskey 14:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Portland. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 22:06, 6 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. Michig (talk) 09:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Phillips (fighter)

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

~~Fails WP:NMMA JadeSnake (talk) 07:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]

Strikeout added because JadeSnake was a confirmed sockpuppet of an already banned user.Willdawg111 (talk) 20:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NMMA with no fights for a top tier MMA organization. Jakejr (talk) 03:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I disagree. Cage rage was UK's top promotion and even featured the likes of Anderson Silva, Lee Murray, Cyborg Santos(male), and Melvin Manhoef, as well as various other UFC veterans and prospects. All the same this guy was/is on the cusp. He faltered when a couplemore wins in a row would have ment a title and more press. Nothing but routine coverage. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 09:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep On the bases of the nominator being proven to be a sock. Because of this consensus may be inaccurate and may lead to wrong course of action, if another user wants to nominate this page for deletion they may do so, but not under the current circumstances. Pound4Pound (talk) 22:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also would like to state that 3 sources have been added to the page, one from The Mirror, one from Yahoo and the last from The Daily Mail, so there are ground via WP:GNG to keep the page. Pound4Pound (talk) 23:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC) Pound4Pound blocked as a sock of the blocked BigzMMA ✍ Mtking ✉ 06:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No one is impressed with bare urls PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 23:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG, WP:ATHLETE, WP:NMMA, and WP:BLP --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 04:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Fails WP:NMMA. Poison Whiskey 12:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NMMA. --LlamaAl (talk) 23:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No fights for a top tier organization, so he fails WP:NMMA. Papaursa (talk) 03:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:SNOW --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:24, 13 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. Michig (talk) 09:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandre Izidro

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

~~Fails WP:NMMA JadeSnake (talk) 07:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]

Strikeout added because JadeSnake was a confirmed sockpuppet of an already banned user.Willdawg111 (talk) 20:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Fails WP:NMMA and seems to fail WP:GNG. Poison Whiskey 14:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NMMA Luchuslu (talk) 01:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The ironic thing is that if he had one more Shooto fight he would be notable as per WP:MMATIER PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 09:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA. Papaursa (talk) 03:12, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NMMA --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:24, 13 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Schmid

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

This person does not appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO. Most of the content is sourced to personal website, and a Google search revealed a lack of reliable sources. Edge3 (talk) 06:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Delete Some sources claim that he is "award-winning," but for the life of me, I can't actually figure out what awards he's won. Otherwise, I agree with the nomination. ALH (talk) 13:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've looked into this a bit more. He has a book about him on Barnes and Noble (here) however, the author admits that the content is mostly from Wikipedia and other sources. Also, I took another look at WP:GNG, and I have to say that I think he simply doesn't meet even the basic guidelines for notability. So, I feel a little more strongly that the article should be deleted. ALH (talk) 03:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~. It seems the award is "The USA Songwriting Competition", which I would not quite label the type of "major music award" described in WP:MUSICBIO #8. Also, the subject does appear to have songs featured in TV shows/commercials, and I see some passing mentions for his work with Miley Cyrus, but I'm not finding much on him or his work in terms of significant coverage (except this from his hometown paper; listed in the article's references) aside from a few press releases. Gong show 01:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC) Changing to weak keep thanks to Paul Erik's findings, the Keyboard piece in particular. Gong show 17:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – In addition to what Gongshow points out, there is an entire article about him in Keyboard – Rideout, Ernie (December 2008). "Mike Schmid with Miley Cyrus", Keyboard 34 (12): 104 (Subscription required) – and an article in Ypulse: Baird, Derek (October 5, 2011). "Let It Out: Mike Schmid On Miley, Fame, Twitter, And Music For Kids". Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:33, 7 January 2013 (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 01:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom. Any slight notability appears first to fall short on both WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG and secondly to be primarily inherited through association with Miley Cyrus. And WP doesn't do inherited notability. David_FLXD (Talk) 04:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If he is deleted, I suggest the name redirect to Mike Schmidt as a possible misspelling. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 13:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "WP doesn't do inherited notability" – I would agree if what we found were articles about Miley Cyrus that mentioned Mike Schmid briefly. But the articles I pointed to are actually the other way around: They are articles primarily about Schmid, and they do mention that he plays keyboards in the band of someone who is much more famous than he is. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Paul Erik's and Gongshow's sources.--Arxiloxos (talk) 06:21, 22 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Parts Models

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

Hand models form a notable occupational niche, but there is no evidence that this company is notable. The references are all slightly disguised PR. The argument for inclusion would have to be that they were selected for interviewing because they're the leading firm, but since none of the sources seems to actually say that, it's at least as likely that they were interviewed because they have the most energetic PR agents. Most of this is based on interviews with them. Sometimes they can be usable, but here they are used as a device for the article to include quotes from the owner. I'm open to the possibility that the company is actually notable , but then someone should write the article who won't write it as a press release. DGG ( talk ) 06:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MJ94 (talk) 01:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found several sources discussing parts modelling as a concept (e.g. [1][2][3]), and there may be enough to support an article on parts modelling in general, but there seems little coverage of this company. --Michig (talk) 10:39, 20 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 Merge to Penis_enlargement. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 03:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jelq

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

I cannot find a single reliable source discussing this technique. I can find a lot of forums, youtube videos, and junk websites, but none that meet WP:RS. Without reliable info, we can't have an article on it. If we can verify it's existence in a reliable source, then we could keep it as a stub, but we can't actually include any details unless they meet WP:RS. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:07, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Merge - my own searching leads to a whole bunch of aggregation sites, SEO spam and forum posts. I'm not able to find any reliable source for it. This article just gets used as a repository for low value spam links. The previous AfD over seven years ago in 9/2005 closed with no consensus, but there was no real argument provided by proponents of keep. Article fails WP:GNGto stand on its own merit and even if there is some coverage, its similar enough that posting it as a new article instead of keeping it together as a sentence somewhere is a WP:CFORK. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 06:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- as i have now informed this above user TWICE, the redirected article contains NO MENTION of the topic, or even the word itself. therefore there is no issue of wp:cfork. see below for my sugestion re: "suitable" sources. as for the previous "no consensus" discussion, i am include the full text below, for convenience, fordue & proper consideration. (redacted--see bottom Qwyrxian (talk) 10:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Comment For the record, it was already merged, but deleted from target article by the community previously. Contents should be added there, this page deleted and recreated with redirect so it can't get rolled back to linkfarm of disreputable sources again. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 14:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep the only reason user:qwryxian is nominatintg this article, or interested in the topic-category at all (see their contribs history), is as "payback" in a dispute we are having @ the spamfilter blacklist. the user has made sweeping edits to reduce the quality of the artilce, has removed ALL of the references, without properly examining ANY of them, & is applying a VERY personal interpretation of "suitability" of references. as for the merits of the subject; as quick online search will verfiy wp:notability. an examination of the previous deletion nomination (from >5 years ago) should offers sufficient evidence of support for the article's existence AND the previous "merge" & redirect of this item has "deteriorated" to the point where the subject is no longer covered in the redirected article. the word "jelq" does not in fact occur in the redirected article (except in the see also link i have inserted there). this makes the redirect USELESS for any end-user. if the nominating user really feels that ALL of the references are unsuitable, then i invite them to select among the 619,000 other items google offers, for "jelq". surely some of these will meet the user's very high standards? respectfully, as always, Lx 121 (talk) 06:24, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:GOOGLEHITS. Explanation for it is given in my deletion endorsement. Thank you -Cantaloupe2 (talk) 06:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - hello, & fair point:) BUT i'm not using the "hit count" for the question of "notability" (that can be settled by other means); i bring up the number to indicate the potential for other "more suitable" references to support the material in the article. Lx 121 (talk) 06:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - So, why did you highlight and italic the hit count as if it meant anything? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 10:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - hi again, as i've already said TWICE above, the number is there to address the point about "suitability" of sources; when google returns >615,000 results for a topic, we really should be able to find a few source-references that we can all agree on the "suitability" of. Lx 121 (talk) 05:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Searching via Google News turned up a few reliable sources briefly discussing this term, which wouldn't be enough to support its own article; it'd be better as a section of penis enlargement. Here are the sources: 2005 Salon article, 2006 The Age article, 2007 LiveScience article (not a strong publisher, but the article is by a reputable author - Christopher Wanjek), 2007 medical journal article, and Mayo Clinic article. More sources: 2004 book published by Rodale, Inc. and 2011 book published by an imprint of Quarto Group. Dreamyshade (talk) 06:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC) Modified 07:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- hello; i really don't have any problem with a merge, EXCEPT that the last time we tried this, it eventually resulted in the material disappearing completely from the article it was merged into. the word "jelq" was in fact no longer present in the "merged" article., resulting in a completely USELESS redirect. Lx 121 (talk) 06:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reviewing the history it looks like it was removed by another editor, probably because it lacked proper references just like the original article. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 06:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - while i would debate the "qualifying standard" you are setting, i think we have the references problem solved now :) Lx 121 (talk) 06:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. A good approach to solving that kind of problem is to discuss it on the talk page for the target article. But as far as I can tell from reading its revision history, the material was removed because it was not properly sourced. If you used the sources I listed above to write a short, verifiable, referenced description of the subject, I believe that other editors wouldn't entirely remove it. Dreamyshade (talk) 06:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
follow-up; i also wish to note for the record, that in "stripping" the article, before nominating it for deletion, user:qrwyxian also deliberately DE-CATEGORIZED IT (as well ass removing the appropriate stub category template). (just noticed that while adding the new & improved refs) i think that this can reasonably be considered as "bad form"; particularly coming from an admin. Lx 121 (talk) 06:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, the category removal was absolutely a mistake on my part; I must have selected too much when I removed the non-reliable sources. I'm going to take a look at the refs now and see if there's enough to support an article. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - hello, & fair enough :) to be clear, i'm fairly "agnostic" on the question of whether this should be a separate article, or a section/part of penis enlargement; what i have a problem with is having a useless redirect, that points the end-user to NOTHING (it also doesn't really help that the penis enlargement article isn't very good... ) Lx 121 (talk) 06:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've integrated 4 of the 5 references (one, in The Age, didn't have any useful info). Each reference contains only a small amount of discussion; it's kind of a toss up for me as to whether all together this is enough to meet WP:GNG. If not, there's definitely useful info here that can be retained in penis enlargement. I won't withdraw the nomination, though I definitely think we need to either Keep or Merge the info. Thank you to Dreamyshade for finding those references! Qwyrxian (talk) 07:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - hello; with all due respect, you are conflating the question of finding "suitable" refereences (according to the standards that you have set), with the question of notability. there is AMPLE evidence to support notability for this topic, with its category, & you are on the fine edge of argueing a line of logic that to the effect that "i disqualified the references, therefore the subject is not notable". that creates a circular logic trap, that can be used to justify removing ANYTHING. in the category of "penis enlargement", this is important info. as i said, i'm not "bound" to either a separate artivle, or to inclusion in the main one for the subject, BUT the main article frankly isn't very good, & the last time this was merged, THE INFO WAS EVENTUALLY REMOVED. that is not an acceptable outcome of a "merge". Lx 121 (talk) 05:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment. You may find it useful to read Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline (if you haven't already) - it explains that references and notability are related, and it also explains that Wikipedia has specific criteria for "reliable sources" that apply to all articles. I know it might seem like people are trying to dissect and destroy material specifically on this subject, but a lot of these edits and comments involve editors just trying to apply standard Wikipedia policies and guidelines. See Wikipedia:Verifiability - no matter how important a topic is, we need to cite the information to reliable sources such as books from reputable publishers and articles from reputable newspapers. As I said in my earlier comment, the right way to address problems with a merge's target article is to bring up the problems on the target article's talk page. I hope this helps. Dreamyshade (talk) 06:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I had to remove the old AfD from here, because leaving it on confuses bots trying to maintain the AfD pages. In any event, there's no reason to copy it here, because it's linked prominently in the upper right corner of this AfD. Not to mention the fact that it closed with no consensus over 6 years ago, so it's not very helpful for our discussion here. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- actually i do object to the removal of that content. i'm sorry but this creates the impression of trying to manipulate the content, to minimize an opponent's arguements.

a) it is NOT appropriate for one "debater" to edit/remove material posted by another participant in the discussion. PARTICULARLY when the 2 persons are in disagreement.

b)if the bots have a problem, then the bots are faulty. if something needs to be removed/chamged in the tagging to fix that, so be it. i have seen plenty of other instances where previous discussions is visible on the page, without any problems.

c) MOST IMPORTANTLY; when an article is nominated for deletion more than once, it is only reasonable & proper that the arguements presented previous be considered. it is MUCH less easy to do so, when they are "hideen away".

i think it is particularly important in this case, in that i find the "no consensus" close to be "questionable"; 7 people commented to keep, 3 people commented to delete, one user was neutral. how that becomes a "no consensus" close is beyond my understanding of the subtle ways of wiki-admins... :p

in short, i'm restoring the text that was removed from my comment. if the formatting of it needs to be modified to prevent bot problems, so be it.

Lx 121 (talk) 05:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Unfortunately I find that the inclusion of the old deletion discussion adds visual confusion when trying to read and understand this deletion discussion. If you want to refer to it or point it out, it's easy to do that by linking to it or quoting excerpts from it. I'd encourage you to look at similar deletion discussions and note that embedding an old deletion discussion is not normal practice. Dreamyshade (talk) 06:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Per Dreamyshade; the sources in the article, although somewhat reliable, do not illustrate the topic in enough detail to justify an article. I'll also note that the constant bludgeoning and shouting by Lx 121, who's making this discussion a battleground, is not helping their 'argument' for keep by doing the latter. Perhaps toning things down and communicating civilly will go a long way. -- MST ☆R ^{(Happy New Year!)} 09:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FOR THE RECORD

i wish to note that the user:cantaloupe2 has AGAIN removed comments of mine from this discussion, FOR (at least) THE THIRD TIME.

[4]

this is unacceptable behaviour by any user in an open discussion, & particularly so, by an admin.

Lx 121 (talk) 07:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

as for the claimed "bot problem" i have stripped out any possible conflicting formatting instruction; therefore the point is now moot.

& just to be completely clear, the above user HAS NOT limited their actions to removing the copy of the previous deletion discussion from this page, they have also (repeatedly) removed MY self-authored comments as well. Lx 121 (talk) 07:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, Lx 121, but that material simply cannot be here. It's linked at the top of this AfD. This is how all 2nd and 3rd (and 6th, and 15th) deletion discussions are done. You can't have things your way just because you like them that way. As Dreamyshade said above, it's very confusing. The admin who closes this discussion should not have to try to figure out what's an old comment and what's a new one, and only the new ones are allowed (per policy) to weigh on the current discussion. Again, this is nothing against you, but this is how all 2nd+ AfDs are done. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Penis enlargement (possibly with deletion of the history as suggested by Cantaloupe2). There is enough legitimate sourcing (namely the Salon and Mayo Clinic links) for a section in that article, but not enough for a standalone article. Lx121, you are not helping your cause by SHOUTING. --MelanieN (talk) 03:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

where exactly do you find "a suggestion to delete the article history"? i cannot find ANY place in this discussion, where that came up o__0 Lx 121 (talk) 06:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Cantaloupe2's comment at 14:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC): "Contents should be added there, this page deleted and recreated with redirect so it can't get rolled back to linkfarm of disreputable sources again." Personally, I think deleting the article (to delete its history) isn't necessary; preserving the history for a merged article helps preserve attribution information for the merged text. Dreamyshade (talk) 06:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

thank-you, i stand corrected :) & i agree with you that deleting the history & "salting the ground" would be overkill in this case. aside from complicating the licensing-attribution requirements; except when an article is being deleted (& the consensus here seems to be heading to a merge), such actions are meant to be used only in extreme cases. it is not desirable to obliterate page histories unnecessarily; that damages the "transparency" of the process @ wiki.

"linkfarm of disreputable sources" -- as regards this part of the auote, i think that description is "egregiously hyperbolic & demonstrably untrue", here is a list of the "highly disreputable" sources that cantaloupe2 was objecting to:

now, user:cantaloupe2 & i may have different opinions about the suitability of particular sources, for particular topics; we may even disagree (strongly) about interpretations of the rules & policies for same; or the wisdom of the current rules as written. HOWEVER, (given the topic of the article) if these sources qualify as a "linkfarm of disreputable sources", then what exactly IS the standard this user would demand, for an article about penis-enlargement? the encyclopedia britannica? the cia world factbook? the oxford english dictionary?

for the particular subject under consideration, some of these sources are in fact, BETTER, more informative, more comprehensive, & contain more "expert" information, than the sources that we ended up going with.

or does the user object to the current sources as well?

Lx 121 (talk) 11:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See what I said above - Wikipedia has specific criteria for "reliable sources" that apply to all articles, and it has even higher standards for medical information (WP:MEDRS). The article's current sources are a well-known online magazine with a good reputation, a medical journal, a respected medical organization, and a journalist specializing in health topics - these all qualify as "reliable sources". Even if a forum post or self-published website has information that an editor considers valid, that's not enough - instead, we need to use information other people have verified as valid (via the editorial processes at newspapers, peer review in journals, etc). See WP:SPS and WP:USERG. Dreamyshade (talk) 11:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with cantaloupe; all the sources you have listed here, ~~with the possible exception of Men's Health~~ (not Men's Health either, it's just a discussion forum), are unreliable sources. Wikipedia specifically rejects Youtube as a source (anyone can say anything there) and the same is true of yahoo and the blogs and forums and other sources you list here. And yes, the standards for an article about penis enlargement are exactly the same as for any other article here: solid, reliable, reputable, fact-checked independent sources. I mentioned above two sources that I think might qualify. Your "linkfarm" is completely unacceptable as sourcing for an international encyclopedia such as Wikipedia. --MelanieN (talk) 01:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Merge - ~~as per nom~~. There seems to be nothing of substance underpinning the article. David_FLXD (Talk) 04:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"There seems to be nothing of substance underpinning the article" -- i am going to restrain myself from making the obvious jokes this line offers. BUT i would like to understand what you mean mean/how it is that you come to this conclusion? what exactly WOULD something of substance underpinning an article be? o__0 (& how does this one fail to meet that requirement) Lx 121 (talk) 10:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the restraint! My apologies, I am guilty of not being careful enough (in itself not acceptable when contributing to AfD debates, I know). The sources are certainly good enough (even if some source article titles look like headings from a men's magazine). I still don't think much of the content, as it stands at present. There is something that might be a technique but probably doesn't really work... What I am trying to get at is that the article seems to be discussing something whose existence, or effectiveness, is doubtful. Ok, I am changing my vote to "Merge", since my view is that while there is not enough for a stand-alone article the present content is adequately substantiated. Qwyrxian and Cornelius383, thanks for the heads-up on my talk page. David_FLXD (Talk) 14:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's important to cover dubious/ineffective things as well as effective things as long as the information is balanced/neutral/verifiable. Wikipedia includes lots of useful encyclopedic information on scams, patent medicines, and hoaxes - jenkem is an example. Dreamyshade (talk) 22:43, 14 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 merge to Province of Indonesia . MBisanz ^talk 01:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed provinces of Indonesia

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

This is a very short article, fails ~~WP:V~~ WP:N, and will be empty if the provinces are created or turned down. United States Man (talk) 05:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Technical note 2013-01-09: I have merged all content. As of now, the page could be redirected. AsianGeographer (talk) 08:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Keep - Sources are provided how can it fail WP:V? It can be deleted if one day it is empty, along with Proposals for new Australian states, Proposed provinces and territories of Canada, Aspirant states of India, ... List of proposed states of the United States. AsianGeographer (talk) 05:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very sorry, I meant to put WP:N. United States Man (talk) 05:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update WRT my vote - A merge is fine with me. I still think an extra article would attract more people to improve the data, but the most important seems to me the content is kept at least somewhere in Wikipedia. AsianGeographer (talk) 07:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Merge to Province of Indonesia - fails notability. speculative and most likely transient in nature. WP:NOTNEWS. --Merbabu (talk) 05:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC) Update: could sit nicely within Provinces of Indonesia as suggested. --Merbabu (talk) 02:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Why don't you tag the corresponding articles for Australia, Canada, USA, India? AsianGeographer (talk) 05:59, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because it's not my responsibility to fix every "problem" on wikipedia. --Merbabu (talk) 06:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK. Then how is it speculative? The proposals exist as is documented and are thus not transient. AsianGeographer (talk) 22:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Provinces of Indonesia ~~Delete~~ - the sources are a problem for me. Four are from the same paper (two are the same article), three others are all the same link without editorial/publication clarity and the other is a reprint from an activist newspaper (though one I have cited myself in the past, this article is obviously not neutral so one must question its editorial value in that context - we are effectively citing activist opinion as fact). Remove the duplicates and it starts running into problems. It needs far more prose to support this simple list with no other details and I can't see that being possible with the sources available. That there are other articles of the same type is not a good argument for keeping this one. Stalwart111 06:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If the sources are the problem, wouldn't one ask for better sources first? AsianGeographer (talk) 07:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, if you have some, I'd be happy to consider them. But the other problem (which I didn't go into) is that there is no single source that talks about this concept, the differences between the proposals, regional socio-economic similarities/differences, etc. So essentially we're bringing together different ideas based on different sources and synthing them together. That can be okay if the sources are rock-solid and similar enough to make comparisons without WP:OR. But who decides which proposals are actually formal proposals, which are pie-in-the-sky, which are actually independence movements, etc. Like I said, this is too complicated a subject to be covered by a short, simple list. But I'm concerned there's not enough to support prose enough to fix that problem. But again, if you have more, please do share. Stalwart111 08:14, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I now found a source stating that the government limited the creation of provinces so that they would "only" reach 44 in 2025, from currently 34.[5]. So to list these 10 would be an option, wouldn't it? That also means there are actual proposals considered by the government, not only some obscure ones. The whole topic in itself is warrants an article, apart from the simple listing. This creationism on new entities seems to be very recent. And it seems much less obscure than many things in Category:Proposed counties of the United States. AsianGeographer (talk) 08:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good start, but it would still seem to me that guessing which ones might be successful (or more successful) and including them here would either be WP:OR or at least a bit pointless. But I'm conscious that the article is new and might be improved. You could always request userfication so you can keep working on it until it is ready for the main article space. Right now, 2/3 of the references are from the one source. Maybe take some time to work on some verified prose before submitting it again. Again, be careful of WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments - besides which, that's a category of individual articles, not an article with a simple list of unexpanded proposals. Stalwart111 08:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Personally I think this idea has merits, like the articles linked by AsianGeographer. However, its scope needs to be extended to historical proposals as well (so the list does not "empty", among other reasons) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I am happy to expand. There is not even a list that shows when the current provinces have been created. I will try to compile one. But why delete this list here? AsianGeographer (talk) 22:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What about integrating the list into the article provinces of Indonesia, and redirecting Proposed provinces of Indonesia to the corresponding section? AsianGeographer (talk) 01:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a better idea. What do others think? --Merbabu (talk) 01:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - I just came here to mention that I forgot that there is id:Wacana pembentukan provinsi baru di Indonesia - how will linking work, if there is no article in the English Wikipedia? Does it work with redirects? ... I don't know. I think with http://www.wikidata.org it may be problematic, there seems to be always one "Q"-entry and only one Wikipedia-link for each language edition. AsianGeographer (talk) 01:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you've lost me there. But I think your merge proposal has merit. I wouldn't strongly object to that. Stalwart111 02:08, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An example for a wikidata entry: http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q3757 ... but I don't know how valuable the Indonesian Wikipedia content is, that it needs to be considered much. AsianGeographer (talk) 02:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A merge sounds good to me as well. Should've thought of that first.United States Man (talk) 02:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'NOTE this AFD was about a stub created by User:AsianGeographer which was a sock of User:Tobias Conradi who has in many cases of earlier socks left a hell of a mess where he travels (sic), it might be reconsidered in the light of this factSatu Suro 00:20, 11 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. Courcelles 02:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yukihiro Yoshida

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

Does not meet criteria of Wikipedia:WikiProject Figure Skating/Notability; see International Skating Union bio Hergilei (talk) 15:41, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 25 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 02:24, 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:23, 6 January 2013 (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) 01:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Indeed, junior achievements do not count towards notability anyway; otherwise, the best achievement - the 7th place in the national championship - does not make hm notable.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:47, 14 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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rasheed Sulaiman

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

Non-notable individual lacking ghit and Gnews of substance. Article references only mention individual in passing.reddogsix (talk) 17:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject works with a couple of companies, one of which has an article on Wikipedia. No evidence that he is individually notable. AllyD (talk) 22:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Rasheed Sulaiman is notable within the entrepreneurial community - I looked him up on here and was confused as to why you don't think he's notable. i've heard about him because of his work with NFL, NBA (artwork) and And1, the shoe company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluemanondeck (talk • contribs) 00:05, 2 January 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]
  - And where, exactly, did you hear this? Because when I follow the citation in the article that purportedly supports that claim, I find that it doesn't say anything of the sort at all. It doesn't say anything about pursuing degrees, either, and doesn't support that content. Indeed, it barely even mentions this person. Why pursuing, by the way? Are they running away? Uncle G (talk) 11:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:09, 6 January 2013 (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) 01:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Wikipedia is concerned with current notability. Doubtless as a successful businessman Mr Sulaiman will become notable in future and attract the attention of the wider press, but that notability needs to be demonstrated when the article is created. The notability endorsement above should be viewed as a possible WP:SPA or WP:COI as the account was created to make a similar comment on the article's talk page.—Baldy Bill (talk) 22:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient coverage of him to be considered notable at this time. --Michig (talk) 12:21, 20 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. Michig (talk) 09:44, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chile–Malaysia relations

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

Apparently non-notable bilateral relation of two arbitrary countries; there is nothing but trade information (everyone buys Malaysian products) and a NEWS-like description of a visit to Chile by the King of Malaysia. הסרפד (call me “Hasirpad”) (formerly R——bo) 04:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (call me “Hasirpad”) (formerly R——bo) 04:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (call me “Hasirpad”) (formerly R——bo) 04:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. The topic is notable. --Dede2008 (talk) 05:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (tal k) 01:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (call me “Hasirpad”) (formerly R——bo) 05:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dede2008: Please explain. הסרפד (call me “Hasirpad”) (formerly R——bo) 20:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MJ94 (talk) 01:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dede2008 98.80.31.136 (talk) 01:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

— 98.80.31.136 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

- Dede2008 didn't really give a reason to keep; do you have any? הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 02:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - like all the other ones that should never have been created. Unless there is something specifically notable about the relationship, an X-X relations article should not be created. Stalwart111 02:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep International relations are notable. There are plenty of official interactions between two countries to cover, ranging from one country reacting to events in another to two countries going to war. It's not "exciting" to read about, but it's politics. It's not valid to say the whole range of pages shouldn't exist when there are an abundance of studies and reliable sources covering interactions between countries. —Ed!^(talk) 03:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ed: Do you really think that all forms of international relations are notable? As another user pointed out at one of many similar ongoing discussions, there are tens of thousands of such "combination" bilateral-relations articles conceivable. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 03:41, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And to be clear - I'm not suggesting that all such articles be mass-deleted or arbitrarily deleted. Only that a good many such articles were created, some based on one document, one visit or the mutual endorsement (along with dozens of other countries) of some obscure non-notable treaty or multi-lateral agreement. There are some (like Canada–United States relations for example) that obviously would never be nominated for deletion and I think we should tackle these individually. But I don't think this one should be in the keep category. Stalwart111 04:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are insufficient secondary sources to establish notability for this bilateral relationship. PianoDan (talk) 04:53, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a one off high level meeting does not make a bilateral article. fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 00:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this encyclopedic topic per WP:N. The topic has received a plethora of WP:SIGCOV. Examples include:

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've read a few of Northamerica1000's sources, and they satisfy GNG IMO. --99of9 (talk) 01:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Northamerica1000's sources. They are reliable coverage, and that works for me. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:26, 16 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 Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin technical closure). Ymblanter (talk) 16:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Klauzál tér (Budapest)

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

It looks not to be notable. ●Mehran ^Debate● 04:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Searching without diacritics ("Klauzal ter", "Klauzal Square") indicates this is quite notable. utcursch | talk 05:00, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, even references already present in the article are sufficient to justify notability.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It has been changed by Utcursch since I nominated it. Thanks to him. I think it could be kept now. ●Mehran ^Debate● 10:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Whilst I believe the article should have more reliable sources, I tend to agree with Ymblanter that the article in it's current state does have adequate sources that justify notability. "I think it could be kept now" - are you perhaps going to withdraw the nomination? -- MST ☆R ^{(Happy New Year!)} 11:59, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I withdraw the AfD and it could be closed. But I prefer no to do that myself. ●Mehran ^Debate● 14:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per above. --Norden1990 (talk) 13:50, 6 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 speedy delete. Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.dallasstairclimb.com/#/history-of-911-climbs/4562302576 Guerillero | My Talk 08:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

9/11 Firefighters Memorial Stairclimbs

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

No indication of notability as an overall event; original research by synthesizing information contained in information about separate events organized and run by separate organizations. GregJackP Boomer! 04:18, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Per WP:G12. The text is taken verbatim from this website. OlYeller21^Talktome 06:03, 6 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. Michig (talk) 09:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pod-Hopping

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

Short article about a non-notable neologism, without any references. The article seems to exist to promote a web site (my-cap.com). - Mr X 03:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As a non-notable neologism; most reference to "pod hopping" are to many very different possible meanings. הסרפד (call me “Hasirpad”) (formerly R——bo) 05:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An attempt to run down references through GNews only results in a few found, none of which refer to swapping or reusing K-cups, as in the article. Same for GBooks. Definitely a non-notable neologism. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 22:50, 8 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 Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Jucchan (talk) 07:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of fastest-selling products

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

Reason for Afd: This is the 2nd Nomination for this article, with the previous one ending with no consensus. (see here for the first discussion.) I am nominating this article for being indiscriminate, as there is an infinite amount of "fastest-selling" things that can be listed. As I and others said in the previous discussion, the article is a trivial, indiscriminate list that compares apples to oranges. The "inclusion criteria" is unsourced, and isn't actually an "inclusion criteria" because all it does is a vague and inconclusive "definition" of fastest-selling. Although almost all entries are sourced, they seem to be listed almost at random. This is a quote from the previous discussion:

Well, I can't say that my research was *that* rigorous at all, and was more like a quick flick through the first few pages of google hits, and latest few pages of ooglenews hits, and stuffing a bunch of links into the article from there. Plus, I was having trouble with my computer (lagging horribly), so my work was cut short. I'm sure if I researched further and wider, the sources would show themselves. Yes: at the moment there is no strict criteria of what "fastest-selling" means... but in my opinion there is one.. or at least one for each product category. And theres only one way to know if I am right or not. Let's get to work! :D--Coin945 (talk) 16:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The creator himself admits that there was no real criteria for inclusion, other than it being on the same page as the words "fastest-selling." This also confirms that the "inclusion criteria" is original research, at it says Yes: at the moment there is no strict criteria of what "fastest-selling" means... but in my opinion there is one.. or at least one for each product category.

There is no uniform unit of time in the article, and as I and Nabla showed:

....The products seem to be listed almost at random; "Game console (Japan)", "Pre-Order of 2012", "Barnes&Noble Product", "2012 Album (UK)", etc. What happened to Pre-Order of 2011 and 2010? What about Game console (US) or 2010 Album (Spain)? What about 2002 rubber ducky and 1999 magazine? Jucchan (talk) 04:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

....When thinking about "highest-grossing films" I think total revenue (over time and over media) of films, I have some sort of criteria from the start. "fastest selling products" is what? 'fastest' is... sold most on first day? weak? hour? month? year? 'selling' is quantity? value? 'Product' is iPhone? iPhone4? iPhone3? cellphone? bathtubs? video games? video games for Windows? horseshoes? large horseshoes? small horseshoes? Golf clubs? seeds? farm? calendars? encyclopaedias? encyclopaedias? That sounds like the definition of indiscriminate. - Nabla (talk) 14:45, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

....What was the best-selling headphone in Rwanda? What was the fastest-selling type of sand in 1965 in California? What was the fastest-selling pajama in China for 1997? Fastest-selling brand of butterscotch in Finland, or in Tokyo, or in Seattle, or in Australia? Also, what timeframe will be used? First week? First month? First year? Although Brawl sold the most on its first week, Wii Sports sold the faster in its first 5 years. The possible entries are infinite (not literally). Jucchan (talk) 21:53, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

There is an almost infinite amount of things that could be listed, making the list indiscriminate.

Of the 7 keep votes, 4 of them used no rationale for deletion or "has an inclusion criteria" for their argument, and one said that the article could be a space for "both high seriousness and well-sourced random information." A list of random information is indiscriminate!

In conclusion, this list is a collection of random trivial information with inclusion being based solely on whether or not someone has said that it was "fastest-selling", and should be DELETED. Jucchan (talk) 03:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The previous discussion just closed, could we have waited a little bit? JayJay^{What did I do?} 03:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about that, but from my viewpoint, waiting wouldn't have helped because this is a issue that won't fix itself over time. The previous discussion had a no consensus, and mostly because of votes in the beginning of the discussion, before the big arguments. The arguments in the latter half of the discussion practically nullified most of the ones that mentioned "inclusion criteria." Jucchan (talk) 04:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep And recommend an admin close. Procedurally, since the previous AFD closed hours ago. I understand that some editors are concerned by this article, but re-nominating it so quickly smacks of WP:POINT. If the creator said what he said, maybe we should allow him (and others) to work on the article instead of peppering him with AFD notices and forcing him to come down here to slug it out with everyone. If there was no consensus a few hours ago, there's not going to be consensus tomorrow. I'd ask for at least a few weeks before this is brought to AFD again. There is no deadline here. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep As above. Nothing has changed. This is a waste. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw Fine, but FreeRangeFrog, there is a deadline. I will give until the end of January for Coin945 and other Wikipedians to improve the article so it has an actual inclusion criteria. If the list is still the random mess it is now, I will put it for AfD again. I am sorry for not waiting long enough and jumping to another AfD too quickly. Jucchan (talk) 07:11, 6 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. Michig (talk) 09:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assan Njie

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

Non-notable MMA fighter. He has none of the 3 fights required to pass WP:NMMA. Jakejr (talk) 03:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Jakejr (talk) 03:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NMMA and WP:GNG. JadeSnake (talk) 07:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC) JadeSnake blocked as a sock of the blocked JonnyBonesJones. ✍ Mtking ✉ 07:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA and appears to fail WP:GNG (only finding the usual fighter record/profiles and information about the footballer). --TreyGeek (talk) 21:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NMMA. --LlamaAl (talk) 01:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notable fights. Luchuslu (talk)
Delete Another article likely created before WP:NMMA and thus delete. Mkdw ^talk 03:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Like it says, he's off to a good start. Keep going buddy! PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 08:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article was created WP:TOOSOON. He has no fights for a top tier organization. Papaursa (talk) 03:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:SNOW --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:25, 13 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Constitutional

I do not see the requirements for the notability for this article. Sorry. New England Cop (talk) 03:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What New England Cop probably meant to say was that this article cites exactly one source, and that isn't an independent one. So someone who did nothing to determine notability other than read the article, which is not putting deletion policy into actual practice, might think that no independent sources exist. However, independent sources reviewing and documenting this magazine such as Maestretti 2007 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFMaestretti2007 (help), Rockwell 2006 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFRockwell2006 (help) (not the most in-depth of sources, but it does tell us about the three founders), and Umbrella Online 2006 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFUmbrella_Online2006 (help) turn out to exist if one goes looking for them.
- Maestretti, Danielle (2007-01-12). "From the Stacks". UTNE Reader.
- Rockwell, Steve (2006). "A Stir in Richmond, Virginia". dart international. Vol. 9, no. 1.
- "Artist Book Reviews". Umbrella Online. Vol. 29, no. 1. Umbrella Associates. March 2006.
Uncle G (talk) 11:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi I just spent a few hours going through the deletion P&Ps but didn't see where it said I had to look for the sources. Can you help? Sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by New England Cop (talk • contribs) 21:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting - do you give people tickets if you're not sure if they have committed an offence? Assessing notability is all about sources - see WP:N. Johnbod (talk) 02:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am well versed in my state's traffic laws and will give out tickets there is an infraction or violation that they have committed. I spent a lot of time going through the deletion P&Ps but I didn't see where it says I had to research for references. I am new to this. Feel like I'm gettin a run around. Not so friendly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by New England Cop (talk • contribs) 04:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Here's a link to the policy: bullet point #7 at WP:DEL-REASON states that "Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed" may be deleted. Scrolling down the page, under the heading Proposed deletion, it reads: "An editor who believes a page obviously and uncontroversially doesn't belong in an encyclopedia can propose its deletion." The words "obviously and uncontroversially" suggest that some effort is expected of the proposer to justify the belief that a page doesn't belong. After that, it's all a question of the adequacy of references in terms of number and quality. Ewulp (talk) 05:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - This is so incredibly bureaucratic and unwelcoming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by New England Cop (talk • contribs) 06:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        You asked for assistance; I took you seriously. Sorry! Ewulp (talk) 06:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. May meet the threshold. There's also some coverage at vernissage.tv. Ewulp (talk) 06:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A couple of brief mentions in small publications does not constitute significant coverage in reliable sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 12:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 13:16, 21 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. Tone 20:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Diego Gonzalez (fighter)

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

MMA fighter with none of the 3 top tier fights required by WP:NMMA. Jakejr (talk) 03:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Jakejr (talk) 03:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Fails WP:NMMA and WP:GNG. JadeSnake (talk) 07:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep — Technically passes WP:NMMA: four bouts for Shooto and one bout for Sengoku. Poison Whiskey 14:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions at WT:MMANOT indicate that only the original Shooto is considered top tier, not Shooto Lithuania (or Finland or whatever). Jakejr (talk) 23:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with that. But those changes need to be made quickly, because the way it is now, we can't make this differentiation. For the ongoing discussion, i'll just withdraw my vote and remain neutral (also, this article hardly meets WP:GNG). Poison Whiskey 13:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NMMA. (talk) 29:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NMMA based on Shooto. JadeSnake (talk) 08:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC) JadeSnake blocked as a sock of the blocked JonnyBonesJones. ✍ Mtking ✉ 07:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA since consensus at MMA project was that only Shooto in Japan was notable (and even that was questioned). Mdtemp (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2013 (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 20:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No top-tier fights, so he fails WP:NMMA. Very few sources, very little context given besides the fight table. Luchuslu (talk) 18:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject lacks signficant independent coverage and fails WP:NMMA. Papaursa (talk) 01:05, 15 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. MBisanz ^talk 20:38, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Moraes

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

Subject has no supported claims of notability. He had 3 MMA fights, none for a top tier organization, so he fails WP:NMMA. There are unsupported claims of many JJ championships and underbelt world championships. Even if true, winning underbelt divisions does not show notability since that's not fighting at the highest level. Jakejr (talk) 02:59, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Jakejr (talk) 02:59, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:Sure he does, he moonlights as aUFC trainer. He also does instructional in magazines as seen here. Passes WP:V with WP:SOURCES. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 06:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can get all the 90 second instructional videos I want at youtube--hardly sufficient to show notability. Jakejr (talk) 23:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NMMA and WP:GNG. JadeSnake (talk) 07:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC) JadeSnake blocked as a sock of the blocked JonnyBonesJones. ✍ Mtking ✉ 07:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA. The article cites only a single source and I'm unable to find much other than the usual fighter profiles/records. There are a couple sources, but not enough to satisfy WP:GNG IMO.
Comment I blanked a significant portion of the prose of the article after discovering a copyright violation. See the article's talk page for more information. --TreyGeek (talk) 22:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NMMA, WP:ATHLETE... --LlamaAl (talk) 01:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Unless more can be added about his grappling career to establish notability. Luchuslu (talk) 01:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:NMMA and I don't think his grappling career (at least as documented) is sufficient for notability. Mdtemp (talk) 17:03, 9 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 no consensus. KTC (talk) 00:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio McKee

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

~~No consensus reached last time, but this article still fails WP:NMMA JadeSnake (talk) 02:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)~~ JadeSnake blocked as a sock of the blocked JonnyBonesJones. ✍ Mtking ✉ 07:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep With his new refs he passes WP:V with reliable WP:SOURCES. Plus he has several notable fights. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 04:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antonio McKee was closed a mere two hours before this renomination. Uncle G (talk) 11:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. On the merits of the article alone, I'd say to keep as passing WP:GNG. While I'm not convinced that the quick renomination meets the criteria of WP:Speedy keep, I'm also not sure it's the best good-faith tactic for dealing with this, so I oppose the deletion request on procedural grounds. —C.Fred (talk) 18:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He still fails WP:NMMA and I don't think winning the California Community College wrestling championship is enough to show notability. I did post on JadeSnake's talk page that is was bad form to repost an AfD that soon and I think/hope he now understands that. Since WP:NOTBUREAU I favor letting this AFD run its course. I expect the outcome to be the same as before, but I see no harm in continuing a discussion that's already started. Jakejr (talk) 23:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Although there have been significant changes made since the last afd. So I expect this one to be different. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 01:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Jakejr (talk) 23:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close as non-conensus as per the last AfD on this person which closed less than a day ago. It's highly doubtful that consensus would have changed in such a short period of time. --TreyGeek (talk) 23:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment :Why ignore all of the new WP:SOURCES that have been added recently? He is clearly notable at this point. Wheres an admin when you need one? PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 00:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

C.Fred is an admin. Although he opposes, i agree with TreyGeek and i would support a speedy keep. I also would like to put another point in question: JadeSnake was also confirmed a sockpuppet of JonnyBonesJones, who was recently blocked indefinitely. If it does not meet the criteria, i keep my opinion from the last discussion, meets WP:GNG. Poison Whiskey 18:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems to have enough sourcing to pass WP:N, which is the gold standard of notability, not WP:NMMA. Rlendog (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that passing WP:GNG would be sufficient, but most of what I see for sources are routine sports reporting--upcoming fight announcements and results. Mdtemp (talk) 16:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What about this Sports Illustrated interview? Nor routine, nor a mere announceement/result. I also ask about the USA Today/MMajunkie article which announces his UFC signing? Which strikes me as more than routine, but rather a big deal. It clearly says in there that he does not have a fight or a timeline in place for one. It is also not a trivial mention of him either. The article is not a press release. In fact, it is critical of Mckee. What about This yahoo Sports article? It is definitely non routine, and can be used as a source according to WP:NEWSBLOG. That alone is enough to pass WP:N PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 17:38, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - One of the most notable non-UFC fighters before his bout at UFC 125. Held one of the longest winning streaks in the sport at one time. The sources added are more than routine IMO, plus his collegiate wrestling accomplishments greatly help his WP:GNG argument. Being a titlist in a major second-tier organization should also be taken into consideration. Luchuslu (talk) 18:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG Delete Fails WP:GNG, Fails WP:ATHLETE, Fails WP:NMMA, Fails WP:BLP, (and a host of other possible qualifiers), most of this is routine sports reporting, and doesn't qualify as sourcing. yes, there is a lot of it, but non of it qualifies. Please read WP:LOTSOFSOURCES be well. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:31, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately, what counts as a source is best described by the guideline at WP:SOURCES, which this article meets, and not your WP:LOTSOFSOURCES essay, Which Mckee does in fact pass.PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 07:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with your casual dismissal of all the article's sourcing? Yes some of the sources are routine sports coverage, but many of them are transcripts of interviews and feature pieces. This, this, and this certainly don't seem "routine" to me, let alone the Sports Illustrated interview with Josh Gross. Luchuslu (talk) 19:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Those that are saying that it meets the GNG but fails NMMA need to realize that the NMMA is alternative to the GNG; normally if an article can't meet the GNG, we look to subject-specific notability guides like NMMA for alternative criteria. But that doesn't mean that an article that would fall under the SNG needs to meet the SNG if it already meets the GNG. Also, I will point out that the previous AFD has identified broader sources that simply haven't been brought into the article. Per WP:V and WP:N, this is acceptable to say that such sources exists. --MASEM (t) 00:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG Delete I agree, Fails WP:GNG, Fails WP:ATHLETE, Fails WP:NMMA, Fails WP:BLP, Ref's are poor! deangunn (talk) 20:13, 10 January 2013

What is wrong with the articles linked to in PortlandOregon97217's comment a few comments up? Rlendog (talk) 21:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close WHY is this still open? It is a re-listing of an AFD that was closed two hours prior!! --SubSeven (talk) 21:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares? WP≠ bureaucracy. And besides, this is looking more and more like a keep to me. Better to get it out of the way now then have this discussion weeks from now I'd say PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 07:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Doesn't meet WP:NMMA, but you can make a case for WP:GNG. The Sports Illustrated artice is the best example. There seems to be significant coverage in other sources, but I'm not sure they're reliable. Most of the sources are routine, but he seems to have gained notoriety (and hence coverage) for being controversial. Papaursa (talk) 03:36, 12 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 per WP:SNOW. The subject was not notable and as the nominator states has become a background for family matters. I came to this decision after reviewing the OTRS ticket and and the edits (one oversighted and another to this page rev/del'd) by an editor now blocked by another Admin per WP:NLT. Dougweller (talk) 11:31, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brandi Hawbaker

AfDs for this article:

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

Neither film career nor poker career is notable. Has become a battleground for family members, with all sorts of poorly-sourced and improperly-made edits, now requiring admin intervention. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 02:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete no significant coverage in reliable sources now, nor even back in the 2nd AfD that was closed as "no consensus - default to keep". The non admin closure of the third AfD as "no consensus" when there was actually no responses in opposition to the nomination was flawed - this should not be here. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I vote for deletion of this page as it has been abused by users and does not meet wikipedias criteria Leedezine (talk) 02:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)Leedezine[reply]
Delete I vote for deletion of this page as it has been abused and is not notable in the poker community!PokermanNV (talk) 02:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC) — PokermanNV (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- FYI... PokermanNV has been indefinitely blocked for being a sockpuppet of Leedezine. Therefore, PokermanNV's comments have been struck per WP:3RRNO. --76.189.103.146 (talk) 05:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and possibly speedy. Poker and acting career may be below most criteria.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable, per the other comments. ukexpat (talk) 03:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some discussion on previous AfDs suggested that there was significant interest in some incidents concerned with this person—yet there is no article relating to such incidents. There is no claim of notability for the subject in the article (nor in past revisions), and the references show no awards that would satisfy WP:N. I have seen the references and external links in previous revisions, and there was nothing reliably sourced and useful for the establishment of notability in them. Examples of articles on notable female poker players include Maria Ho and Annie Duke where there is evidence of significant awards. Johnuniq (talk) 03:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hold we have to many issues right now its protected so nobody can even edit it also Leedezine and PokermanNV's votes are identical JayJay^{What did I do?} 03:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- They are not identical and this is not a vote.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can attest I am not identical, and am of a different gender, and play poker in Las Vegas! I again vote deletePokermanNV (talk) 03:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)PokermanNV[reply]
  - They are almost identical, PokermanNV has no other edits and they both posted in a narrow timeframe. And you know what I mean by votes how else am I suppose to word it? JayJay^{What did I do?} 03:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Don't assume I know what you mean, <redacted> you should take some time to think before you post.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Don't need to be calling names here, we can keep this discussion in a civilized manner JayJay^{What did I do?} 16:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ahem! So should you. You should think about whether you want to appear to the world like the sort of некультурный lout who says "dick head" and "beak off" to a complete stranger in public. You clearly did know what xe meant, given that you in response told xem that this wasn't a vote. Uncle G (talk) 12:00, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - "opinions", "rationales", "discussion contributions" are some of the several ways to word it. Uncle G (talk) 12:00, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The article does not need editing at the moment as it's appearance is not relevant here. What would count would be any indication of notability, and this is a good place to do that. If someone finds something, would they please give a very brief outline of what encyclopedic information could be added to the article, and note the reliable source. Also, there is no need to be concerned about the two new editors commenting above as the closing admin will know how to weight such comments. Johnuniq (talk) 04:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I don't see the notability here. NawlinWiki (talk) 03:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above + WP:SIGCOV. How this article survived 3 past AfD's, is nothing short of a miracle. -- MST ☆R ^{(Happy New Year!)} 12:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No sign of notability PianoDan (talk) 13:24, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails notability tests (history of vandalism is irrelevant here). I think I'm starting to feel WP:SNOW coming on. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT perhaps? This battleground on a desceased, non-notable actress, would her article ever need to be created again? Livewireo (talk) 19:29, 7 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. Michig (talk) 20:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Complexity of Songs

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

Why is an individual humorous article worthy of a serious article here? It does not seem to have made any lasting impact (besides for being listed in every list of mathematical humor thereafter) nor does it seem to have been cited much (obviously! that would be notably funny). הסרפד (call me “Hasirpad”) (formerly R——bo) 02:23, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Why not? Originally a conference paper, it was reprinted twice in mainstream computer sci joutnals, meaning serious people had found it notable. Being listed in every list also means it is notable. Aslo, it is not about one article but three, by three different people. The article has 3-rd party refs. - Altenmann >t 02:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly this paper has won recognition within the field of computer science. The theory of song refrains has probably been covered by musicologists and a wider search could most likely find relevant material beyond what computer scientists have looked into. See Category:Formal sections in music analysis. EdJohnston (talk) 05:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Am I missing something? The article says it was a spoof, why would it be referred to in serious theories of song refrains by musicologists? הסרפד (call me “Hasirpad”) (formerly R——bo) 05:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article says that it was an in-joke, not a spoof. Uncle G (talk) 12:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Unbelievable, isn't it? A joke article is referred in serious publichaitons! Well, it was a great joke by a great scientist. - Altenmann >t 20:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well sourced article; paper seems to have been reprinted, listed in multiple lists and well known, so passes notability threshold. A joke can still be a notable joke. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As far as I know, multiple mentions on lists and a moderate amount of citations don't suffice for notability, whether for journal articles or for in-jokes/spoofs; in-depth coverage is what is needed, and I see no indication (after searching Google Scholar) of there being any. הסרפד (call me “Hasirpad”) (formerly R——bo) 19:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is a journal article. Its notability is defined by citations. The article is self-explanatory and does not need extensive "in-depth coverage". - Altenmann >t 19:38, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
True, perhaps; that is why I wrote moderate amount of citations. A large number of citations are generally considered sufficient for notability (of journal articles? or of a subject/discovery/hypothesis?). Google Scholar has 17 citations, I believe; considering my relative ignorance, I would rather that others decide whether they imply notability. הסרפד (call me “Hasirpad”) (formerly R——bo) 19:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, 17 citations in serious papers, such as "Poetic" statistical machine translation: rhyme and meter for a joke article says about its influence, hence notability. - Altenmann >t 20:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please look at Category:Academic journal articles and take a few samples to get an idea just how widely cited an individual journal article must be to be considered notable. "Multiple citations" is a criterion of WP:PROF, I believe; an article is a different matter entirely. הסרפד (call me “Hasirpad”) (formerly R——bo) 20:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for a suggestion of the category to add to the article (done). About the rest, sorry, disagreed. For wikipedia purposes, it is established that Knuth's article is well-known among computer scientists and even (moderately) influential. Hence moderately notable. - Altenmann >t 20:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added another reference indicating the paper had some impact on CS pedagogy. Back in the day, this was popular among CS students--it was a very xeroxed, passed around paper. While the paper was considered an in-joke, the results in the paper are correct--the joke was in the implied social commentary that songs were dumbing down, probably because of drugs. Unfortunately, people don't write news stories or learned articles about very xeroxed, passed around papers in academic circles, so there are relatively few citations indicating its impact at the time. Still, there are sufficient follow-on articles by others for there to be multiple independent RS and notability over time to keep the article. Mark viking (talk) 20:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Yet, it seems irrational that every well-known academic article should qualify for an article (cf. WP:NBOOK). If this article is to be kept, it is only for its final line sentence: "...Knuth's article was seminal for analysis of a special class of functions."
  - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. - Altenmann >t 07:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment 2: I am not opposed to a merge to Mathematical joke or Donald Knuth or to some aspect of music theory computational complexity theory (?). הסרפד (call me “Hasirpad”) (formerly R——bo) 23:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - In this case, since this page is reasonably large, after merge into Donald Knuth it will only be eligible to split out bac, per Wikipedia:Summary style. - Altenmann >t 05:13, 8 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 redirect to Zoosk. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 16:22, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Mehr

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

His company may be notable, but he has no separate notability. Half of the article is a personal account of his struggles to get a green card, and the other half duplicates the material on the company. DGG ( talk ) 02:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect To Zoosk. No standalone notability. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect to Zoosk - no standalone notability; sources cited in the article tend to be more centralized around the company, rather the individual. -- MST ☆R ^{(Happy New Year!)} 12:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 7 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 redirect to Zoosk. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shayan Zadeh

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

His company may be notable, but he has no separate notability. Half of the article is a personal account of his struggles to get a green card, and the other half duplicates the material on the company. DGG ( talk ) 02:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect To Zoosk, like the other one. No standalone notability. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MJ94 (talk) 01:04, 13 January 2013 (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) 01:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Zoosk like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Mehr. All of the sources are about Zoosk, not the actual person. Notability is not established. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:46, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested. The attempt to make three articles when one would do is a standard technique of promotional editing that should not be encouraged. DGG ( talk ) 03:26, 21 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. Courcelles 01:48, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

George Patton Associates

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

Promotional article for non-notable company. All the references are either self published or press releases or non-substantial mentions of their record at the BBB. DGG ( talk ) 02:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MJ94 (talk) 01:05, 13 January 2013 (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) 01:46, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Neutrality^talk 11:04, 22 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. Obvious failure of the notability guidelines. Closing this slightly early under WP:SNOW. —C.Fred (talk) 02:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Top Of The World (Nicki Minaj song)

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

Fails WP:NSONG and WP:RS. The song hasn't yet been released, so it hasn't made any sales or won any awards, nor has it been independently released by any other artists. The article's only source is a dotcom website apparently owned by Minaj herself, and doesn't obviously have any information on the article topic. There are no inline citations. The album in which the song is reportedly to be released is currently in an AfD. The exact release date is as yet unknown. Rutebega (talk) 01:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NSONG and WP:RS. JadeSnake (talk) 08:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC) JadeSnake blocked as a sock of the blocked JonnyBonesJones. ✍ Mtking ✉ 07:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "Top Of The World is a failed song", says it all. No reliable sources, and fails WP:NSONG by a long shot. -- MST ☆R ^{(Happy New Year!)} 12:18, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The song isn't notable and has false information and rumors.--Nikinikolananov (talk) 13:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Burn with fire as soon as possible. Fails pretty much every test. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 15:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Who keeps making these Nicki Minaj articles anyways? JayJay^{What did I do?} 19:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources, fails notability criteria. Holiday56 (talk) 12:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 7 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. KTC (talk) 00:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leon S. Talaska

AfDs for this article:

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

No notability established. Previous AfD reached no consensus and the article has shrunk since then. Garamond Lethe 01:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Granted, it is hard to find sourcing for someone of his generation, but even if they were strongly sourced, the achievements claimed (first physician of Polish descent in Toledo, "city physician", superintendent of a hospital) do not amount to notability. --MelanieN (talk) 04:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't seem sufficiently significant and lacks anything beyond local coverage. --Michig (talk) 20:50, 13 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. (non-admin closure) -- Cheers, Riley 01:05, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tata Management Training Centre

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

This article may fail general notability guidelines for organizations. The one reliable source ("Nurturing leaders") is cited as a different footnote multiple times. i'm also concerned about the notability of the award they were given. I fear that this organization isn't notable enough - combined with the promotional appearance of the article, I am nominating it for potential deletion. SarahStierch (talk) 01:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep Considering the great importance of the company, it is possible that this may be separately notable. The best source is the article in the Hindu. DGG ( talk ) 03:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it could be a fail on my part since I'm looking only at English sources. :-/ SarahStierch (talk) 04:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As would be expected for the management training centre of one of the world's leading multinational conglomerates there are loads of reliable sources found by the English-language searches linked by the nomination procedure, including this article in The Economic Times headlined "India's top five management centres" and this book published by Penguin. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Phil Brigader and Google News mentions --Tito Dutta (talk) 00:52, 13 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 redirect to Aberfan. MBisanz ^talk 00:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ysgol Rhyd y Grug

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

Non-notable primary school. Does not satisfy WP:GNG Catfish Jim and the soapdish 01:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Either plain delete or merge with Quakers Yard, where it is. Primary Scholls are generally NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The building pictured is there. That hasn't been the site of the school for some years, now. Uncle G (talk) 11:03, 19 January 2013 (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) 01:41, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep The subject as a school is clearly notable. It is notable for the same reasons any other school is notable. This school over many years has worked to create thinkers which makes it inherently notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.17.102.92 (talk) 06:33, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia does not consider all schools inherently notable. Please review our notability guidelines. This school would be notable if -- and only if -- it were the subject of substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. If you have found such sources, please add them to the article or present them here. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 07:34, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Please read WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES Catfish Jim and the soapdish 09:05, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - It would be difficult for us to determine that for a school in Scotland. This school is likely notable through thousands of people, the standard reason any school is notable. As opposed to going by this form of notability, we should be looking at the fact that if a student does a search and their school comes up on Wikipedia, maybe they will feel more seriously about it. Every little bit helps. This is a moral matter as opposed to anything else. ~~Julser1~~— Preceding unsigned comment added by Julser1 (talk • contribs) 12:24, 13 January 2013‎
    - The "standard reason any school is notable" does not apply here. On Wikipedia, most schools below high school are not notable. As a result, we generally redirect them to their school district's article (if there is one) or the government level they serve (city, town, etc.). Wikipedia does not exist to serve any particular conception of morality. Wikipedia does not exist to encourage anyone to feel any particular way about anything. Wikipedia is about gathering and summarizing verifiable information about notable topics. Anything else simply does not belong here. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's sad to observe AFD commentary based upon not even reading the article at hand. This is a school in Wales, not Scotland. Getting such a fundamental thing so obviously wrong will serve to completely undermine whatever argument is based upon it. Uncle G (talk) 11:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Merthyr Tydfil. Non-notable primary school. Fails WP:GNG. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:08, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd ask "Why not Quakers Yard, as above?" were it not for the fact that the school has been in Aberfan for two and a quarter years now. Julser1 didn't read the article at hand to see that this is actually Wales, not Scotland. But others haven't read the only externally linked WWW page in the entire article to see that the article, with its pretty picture and two sentences of content, is basically incorrect on almost every point except the headmaster's name. Even the picture is wrong. This isn't the school building, nor the address of the school. And Ynysowen is not in Aberfan. Uncle G (talk) 11:03, 19 January 2013 (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 00:20, 21 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. I did note a couple of requests to let the debate run longer, but I don't at this point see doing that changing the outcome. The clear consensus position, especially among uninvolved editors, is that the sources presented are insufficient to sustain the article or demonstrate notability. If additional sourcing meeting notability requirements, meaning being secondary, reliable, covering the subject substantively and in-depth, and uninvolved with the subject can be found, this matter can be revisited at that time. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ananda Marga Caryacarya (Parts 1, 2, and 3)

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

Apparently non-notable book. Lots of ghits - from people selling it. Seems to lack in-depth coverage by independent sources. Not to be confused with "Ananda Marga", which is notable. bobrayner (talk) 00:31, 6 January 2013 (UTC) bobrayner (talk) 00:31, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

article creator's comment: This book of Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar aka Shrii Shrii Anandamurti, was written on 1956, originally published in Bengali and translated in English and in other languages. Is considered to be the samája shástra ("social treatise") of the social and spiritual movement Ananda Marga. On my opinion this book meets the WP notability criteria at least on three grounds: (3) The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement. (5) The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable.--Cornelius383 (talk) 00:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
merge into the article on the author as the reasonable solution. Not really separately notable. Our usual standard for considering someone sufficiently important that all the works are notable is not just historically significant, but "so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable" -- in practice this approximates to "famous". There should be an entry of some sort for the book, but the interests of readers will be best served by including the information in the article on the author. DGG ( talk ) 03:07, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This book meets the WP notability criteria on two grounds: (3) The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement. (5) The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable. Regarding the first criterion (3), this series of books has been designated as the social code for all members of Ananda Marga by their spiritual preceptor. It includes ceremonies from baby namings to weddings to funerals and provides instructions regarding all aspects of social life. Regarding the second criterion (5), it is self-explanatory. The fact that Sarkar wrote extensively on such a wide range of topics is itself historically notable (as I doubt that another such example may be found). In my estimation, the question of "merge" does not arise, as a merge would necessitate too brief an explanation of the content or a ridiculously long article on the author. --Abhidevananda (talk) 10:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Abhidevananda (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]
- Can you provide some kind of evidence for your first point? Hopefully from an independent source, rather than one within the sarkarsphere. It seems a bit tangential to policy but I'm open to whatever independent sources say, if you can find one. Your second points has absolutely no basis in policy. bobrayner (talk) 11:14, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Would the Supreme Court of India satisfy you, Bob? Or how about the courts in various other countries? Just about any time that AMPS has appeared in court... for any reason whatsoever... Caryacarya is referenced. And, why would someone have to be outside of what you call the sarkarsphere. As someone firmly within that sphere, I can authoritatively and reliably state that Caryacarya "has made a significant contribution to [this] religious movement". In any event, the two points that I mention are two out of the five points listed at Wikipedia:Notability_(books). If you had followed the link I provided, you would have realized that this is indeed WP policy. Bob, in my opinion, before making or supporting an AfD on a book article, one should at least be conscious of what is written on that page. According to that page, a book is considered to be notable if it meets only one of those five criteria. Here, we see 2 out of 5 criteria met. --Abhidevananda (talk) 14:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The notability of this series of books is obvious. As Ananda Marga has its page, the nomination for deletion appears to be both ignorant and abusive. BobRaynor's original remarks regarding "ghits - from people selling it" are indicative of a lack of understanding and likely bias towards a particular group - insulting and ridiculous. Definitely not in the spirit of assuming good faith. An honest editor would have removed the nomination by now. The inclusion of the article should stand on the grounds explained above. DezDeMonaaa (talk) 05:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)— DezDeMonaaa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note to closing admin: Alas, the DezDeMonaaa account has only ever made two edits - to these two AfDs - and in doing so has a precocious knowledge of enwiki norms & markup, and also makes similar points to the only other editor who has !voted "keep", who in turn appears to have been canvassed. bobrayner (talk) 13:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: Clearly, DezDeMonaaa is a newbie (as indeed am I to a great extent). Accordingly, it seems to me that Bob's remark here is in violation of Wikipedia protocol in general and in specific for AfDs (see WP:BITE). As to Bob's hasty slur about my having been canvassed, that only indicates to me that this person - the person behind this frivolous AfD - needs to take a step back from all matters connected with what he call the "Sarkarverse". His rash accusations and draconian actions are compelling evidence of an unbalanced (non-neutral) POV. --Abhidevananda (talk) 05:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Surely any closing admin will be competent to see through Abhidevananda's fiction; a newbie whose only edits are two neatly-formatted keep !votes on related AfDs is clearly no newbie at all. bobrayner (talk) 21:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

article creator's comment: the article provide only basic informations and I can add more details if necessary. Note for Bob: no canvassing, me and this user are working on the same Sarkar's project. It was a normal comunication as we use on WP.--Cornelius383 (talk) 15:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ (Further Clarification): As it seems that Bob Rayner is unlikely to do the decent thing by simply withdrawing this frivolous AfD, let me offer additional arguments (clarification) for my Keep vote. As I mentioned already, Ananda Marga Caryacarya (Parts 1, 2, and 3) is the social code of Ananda Marga. To put that in context, it should be understood that in the early-to-mid 1980s, the Supreme Court of India recognized Ananda Marga as a "religion". This ruling was made in large part due to the fact that Sarkar had given an extensive social code in the form of these three books. In brief, Caryacarya effectively prescribes the ideal way in which a member of Ananda Marga should live her/his life, 24-7, from cradle to grave.

Among many other things, Caryacarya includes a baby naming ceremony, a marriage ceremony, and even a funeral/memorial ceremony - all of them quite distinctive. These ceremonies are not only recognized within Ananda Marga but also, in some parts of the world, by secular society. For example, in the 1970s, as a registered marriage celebrant in Australia, I performed many legally binding wedding ceremonies in accordance with the system prescribed in Caryacarya Part 1. Many of those wedding ceremonies were well covered by the news media (newspaper, radio, and television). Even persons who were not members of Ananda Marga sought me out for performing their wedding ceremony in accordance with the system found in Caryacarya.

Further putting this in context, the social code of Ananda Marga is comparable to the Sharia law of Islam and the Halakha of Judaism. Has anyone on Wikipedia nominated for deletion - or merger - the article on the Jewish and Muslim social codes? Even if anyone were to do so, I doubt that the nomination would be taken seriously. Just looking at a small part of the Ananda Marga social code found in Caryacarya, the system for bringing complaints and resolving disputes, this could be compared to the canon law of the Catholic Church. Has anyone on Wikipedia nominated for deletion - or merger - the article on the Catholic canon law? Even if anyone were to do so, I doubt that the nomination would be taken seriously.

Yes, it is a fact that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are all much longer established than Ananda Marga. But once one accepts that Ananda Marga has notability - as Bob expressly does in his AfD nomination - then it almost automatically follows that the distinctive social code of Ananda Marga would also have notability. I stated above that this series of books, Ananda Marga Caryacarya (Parts 1, 2, and 3), meets the WP notability criteria on two grounds. But Bob - and DGG - have only offered a different subjective interpretation of the second ground that I stated. Neither of them has addressed the first ground: The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement. I don't believe any rational person would deny the fact that the series of books under consideration here has in fact "made a significant contribution to a notable religious movement". Should anyone choose to argue that this is not the case - that Caryacarya has not made a significant contribution to Ananda Marga - then I submit that the burden of proof should be on that person to substantiate the notion. Ivory-tower opinions and accusations, having no basis in fact, may best be overlooked. --Abhidevananda (talk) 07:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can't !vote twice. One canvassed vote is too many, two is beyond the pale. I have taken the slightly bold step of striking through your second "keep" !vote. Also, if you could stop the walls of text, that would be nice too. bobrayner (talk) 00:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete / merge~~Hold this open until at least Janaury 21st Unless proponents can add and point out sources of the type required for wp:notability. In-depth coverage by secondary sources. If that occurs, then it should be kept. North8000 (talk) 17:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've had conversations with the main author at my talk page and theirs. They do not yet understand that the system here is likely to judge based on wp:GNG and so we are not seeing any identification of any wp:GNG-suitable sources that may exist. This needs another week for them to understand and identify those if they exist. North8000 (talk) 11:02, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge and redirect to Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar. I agree that significant secondary source coverage is required for a stand-alone article. The assertion has been made that this exists, but I don't see it. Disclosure: This Afd was mentioned in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Progressive utilization theory. Location (talk) 17:45, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

article creator's comment: As I said here: "Outrageous statements of Bobrayner" and as you can see at the incipit of this page ("Lots of ghits - from people selling it") I must point out the outrageous statements of Bobrayner that have been noticed also by other users. As a WP editor I'm trying to do my best here, I give respect and I pretend respect by other users too.

--Cornelius383 (talk) 19:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And how is this relevant to the AfD? If you think he is being uncivil, file a report at the appropriate place. Just watch out for the boomerang. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 19:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My complaint is in this talk because the phrase "Lots of ghits - from people selling it" was also written here, at the incipit of this talk. Since his sentence was absolutely inappropriate, my observation here is absolutely licit.--Cornelius383 (talk) 21:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

article creator's comment: anyway I will insert the under construction template on the article and I will try to insert secondary sources.Thanks--Cornelius383 (talk) 23:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've just added in the article an official source that states: "the Ananda Marga religion includes a governance system (Ananda Marga Pracaraka Samgha or AMPS) which is set out in a sacred text called Carya Carya". I think that this document should be sufficient to show the aderence to WP criteria notability at least on ground: (3) The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement..--Cornelius383 (talk) 00:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not meeting notability requirements (mentions in third party sources, etc.) Collect (talk) 02:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

article creator's comment: sorry but I have again to point out that, what is attested on the official document that I added yesterday on the article states: "the Ananda Marga religion includes a governance system (Ananda Marga Pracaraka Samgha or AMPS) which is set out in a sacred text called Carya Carya". It compels us to consider this book as the basic text of this religion/spiritual movement. And that is why, on a rational basis, I believe that after the add of this resource this article should remain as a standalone article. This at least in accordance with the dictates of grounds: (3)The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a ...religious movement, and (5)The book's author is historically significant (see all the quotations related to him, his literary production, his social movements and so on..). Otherwise, I wonder what is the use of WP notability criteria?--Cornelius383 (talk) 17:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's all very well for a book within a belief-system to say "this is an important book". Doesn't prove anything; just circular reasoning. There's no point in saying "I believe in X, I wrote an article about a book, the book is important in X, so it must be kept". There are still no independent sources which attest to this importance. bobrayner (talk) 17:37, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with others, this should be deleted per WP:SIGCOV. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 20:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

article creator's comment: OK but let's tray to discuss all on a rational basis. Follow my reasoning please: 1)is there an academic and accredited source quoting clearly that the book Caryacarya is "the sacred test of Ananda Marga religion"? YES. 2)Is there a rule in WP that says that if a book is significant for a religious movement we can write an article about it? YES (WP criteria notability point (3)) 3)Is the author historically significant? YES point (5) of WP NC. (If you want I can insert this academic quote/source: Giani Zail Singh, seventh president of India, has said about Sarkar: "Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar was one of the greatest modern philosophers of India."(Inayatullah, Sohail. (2002) Understanding Sarkar: The Indian Episteme, Macrohistory and Transformative Knowledge. Leiden: Brill). It's sufficient I think, but if you debate of the historical importance of this philosopher I can add more citations to confirm it. Thanks--Cornelius383 (talk) 20:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. Zail Singh may well have praised Sarkar; but that's for the Sarkar article, it doesn't mean we need a separate article about every thing that Sarkar ever wrote or did. bobrayner (talk) 22:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It shows the historical importance of the author: and this is important in order to demonstrate the adherence of the article at the WP notability criteria point (5) (i.e. "The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable"). Not only because is the highest Indian authority to assert it. But because it is also mentioned in an academic source. And why Caryacarya is important? Because, as stated from the other academic source that I've added, is the most important "sacred text" of this religious movement. We have now two academic sources showing the adherence of the article at point (3) and point (5) of WP NC.--Cornelius383 (talk) 23:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. bobrayner (talk) 21:14, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~KEEP~~: I have stated clearly that any time Ananda Marga has appeared in court, Caryacarya is cited. That is unavoidable, because it is the Ananda Marga social code. So a simple google search turns up numerous court documents that show Caryacarya being mentioned, indeed mentioned prominently. The AfD nominator's insinuation that all of the google hits are for people selling the book is rubbish. Those voting Delete have either not done adequate research or else they have cast their votes on the basis of prejudice or group sentiment. Here are just a few examples of court-related google hits in connection with Caryacarya.

Legal documents showing that Caryacarya is the social code of the Ananda Marga spiritual movement

(1)

______________________________________________________________________

"The relevant question herein for consideration is whether the High Court is correct in it's finding that Tandava dance is an essential and integral part of Ananda Margi faith based on the revised edition of Carya Carya."

Online here

and

(2)

______________________________________________________________________

"5.3. The tenets of the Ananda Margi are both oral and written as in the case of many religions. The fact that there were no writings to show to the Court that Tandava dance is to be performed in public, did not negative the existence of such precepts. Moreover, in the 1986 edition of Carya Carya specific mention was made by Anand Murtiji of the requirement of Tandava dance in procession on special functions and festivals. [1048-H; 1049-A-B]"

Online here

and

(3)

______________________________________________________________________

Memo of Law (Denver District Court)

"2. During his physical life, the Rev. Baba gave AMPS its Holy Scriptures, which include Ananda Sutram, Subhasita Samgraha, Ananda Vacanamrtam, Namami Krsna Sundaram, Namah Shivaya Shimtaya, Guide to Human Conduct (Yama and Niyama), and Caryacarya Parts 1, 2, and 3. Exhibits 1-2 and 6; Exhibit 13 at 29:8-30:4 and 89:11-91:10. Caryacarya is the social code portion of the AMPS Holy Scriptures. Exhibit 2. In 1956, Rev. Baba gave AMPS Caryacarya Parts 1, 2, and 3, in Bengali. The first English addition was published in 1962. Id. In 1995, the sixth addition of Caryacarya was approved by the Central Committee and published in English, Hindi and Bengali. It is currently the official version of the Carayacarya and has been since its publication in 1995. Id."

Online here

and

(4)

______________________________________________________________________

Ananda Marga versus Tomar (Australia)

"The defendants say that this material is relevant because:

"o AMPS Ltd is the vehicle through which the Ananda Marga religion operates in Australia, holds its assets and receives its funding;

"o the Ananda Marga religion includes a governance system (Ananda Marga Pracaraka Samgha or AMPS) which is set out in a sacred text called Carya Carya;"

Online here

(5)

______________________________________________________________________

These excerpts are from the 2011-05-16 ruling of the HONORABLE MICHAEL MARTINEZ, Judge of the Denver District Court, in the case of ANANDA MARGA, INC, ET AL, v. ACHARYA VIMALANANDA AVADHUTA, ET AL.

Pages 11

11 Ananda Marga has a recognized creed in the form of

12 worship. From every evidence that I have heard, Reverend

13 Baba was very thorough, very detailed in his vision, and was

14 also very prolific in his writings, that is probably an

15 understatement. Nonetheless, there were certain writings,

16 doctrines, codes, and practices of Ananda Marga that stand

17 out and have been corroborated by the testimony in the

18 record as well as the exhibits.

19 Ananda Marga, the path of bliss, Caryacarya parts

20 one, two, and three, Ananda Sutram, and Ananda Marga

21 elementary philosophy. Reverend Baba, on the evidence

22 before me, has established that he was quite a visionary in

23 his desire, in his goal to promote, to establish the path of

24 bliss and to promote the path of bliss for all adherents,

25 open to everyone, to whomever may wish to avail themselves

Page 12

1 of it. In so doing, the record is undisputed and clear that

2 he created a structure for Ananda Marga going forward.

3 Significant, impressive in its detail, in its

4 hierarchy, in its doctrine, and discipline. Those are the

5 most -- at least it stood out most to me what clearly

6 established in the Caryacarya parts one, two, and three, I

7 seem to recall I think it was Plaintiff's Exhibit 15, I

8 might be off with the number, that had the largest excerpts

9 from that.

...

Page 21

4 Reverend Baba provided for structure to ensure

5 that the mission was being evaluated periodically and

6 progressing, provided for inspections of each sector to

7 ensure that they were complying with the Caryacarya and

8 other rules of conduct and conventions of Ananda Marga.

...

Page 27

2 As the highest branch of the Ananda Marga mission,

3 AMPS Central in North America, Ananda Marga, Inc, stet

4 organized and operated exclusively for the religious

5 purposes of promulgating the religious purposes of Ananda

6 Marga. As such, it is governed by the principles and the

7 structure of Ananda Marga and AMPS Central, including

8 Caryacarya.

...

Page 38

1 denomination. AMPS Central is a central authority for AMPS.

2 Ananda Marga, Inc, is a part of the AMPS denomination, it

3 has been testified to the constitution of the AMPS

4 incorporates the Caryacarya, AMPS is governed by the

5 Caryacarya, the AMPS procedural rules, other writings, and

6 scriptures promulgated by Reverend Baba.

7 Ananda Marga, Inc, is an affiliate of and

8 subordinate to the AMPS Central headquartered in Ananda

9 Nagar, India. AMPS Central is the parent organization of

10 Ananda Marga, Inc, and all US organizations subordinate to

11 Ananda Marga, Inc. Ananda Marga, Inc, and the New York

12 Sector of AMPS are one and the same. Ananda Marga, Inc, is

13 governed by the Caryacarya, AMPS procedural rules, and other

14 holy scriptures.

15 You know, repeatedly I heard testimony qualifying

16 the obligations and the rules, we do the best we can, time,

17 place, and person, but even that interpretation connotes the

18 same conclusion, which is Ananda Marga, Inc, is governed by

19 the Caryacarya, the AMPS procedural rules, and other

20 scriptures of the AMPS.

Online here

--Abhidevananda (talk) 00:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can !vote only once. So, I've stricken off the keep. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 18:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

article creator's comment: tanks. I've immediately added all in the article in a concise form.--Cornelius383 (talk) 02:27, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have just added another secondary source US Sports Academy (America's Sports University). Tanks--Cornelius383 (talk) 17:53, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now we have 4 legal documents and 3 academic secondary sources on this article to show it's adherence to point 3 and 5 of WP notability criteria. I hope it's sufficient.--Cornelius383 (talk) 20:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trial transcripts (including material which relates to either the trial or to any of the parties involved in the trial — published/authored by any involved party, before, during or after the trial) are not just non–independent sources, per WP:OR they are also primary sources. The four legal documents certainly don't compensate for the lack of coverage in reliable independent sources as required by WP:GNG. It also does not establish 3 and 5 of WP:BKCRIT: just because a book's author was involved in a trial doesn't mean he or his work is notable, neither is that a significant contribution to any art form. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 20:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please note: 1)when one Court accepts (and don't rejects) that something on a legal document has probative value, this is considered true for the purposes of a lawful consideration of that subject. So you have to accept it as a part of the legal and public structure of that organization. This is important because the Court is an entity not only independent from the subject but is a legal entity that can also definitely outline its public structure. So these books are part of the Ananda Marga spiritual organization and this legal document is useful to show the adherence of this article to point (3) of WP notability criteria. But here we have also several academic sources showing the adherence of this article to point (5) of WP notability criteria too.--Cornelius383 (talk) 20:52, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: CK consistently misunderstands or misrepresents the argument. First, it was not the "book's author" - actually multiple books - that was involved in a trial. Second, the ruling of judges in trials would have to be "independent", almost by definition. Otherwise, who would give any value to the legal system? Third, no one is talking about making a significant contribution to an art form. Rather, the point is that there is a significant contribution to a religious movement. But, hey, 0 for 3 - that seems to be par for the course for a man/woman who styles himself/herself as "Correct Knowledge". :) --Abhidevananda (talk) 21:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abhidevananda, we shouldn't have to remind you of this over and over again:

1. Personal attacks are bad. Stop that.

2. You can't win an AfD by saying "keep" over and over again. One canvassed keep !vote is bad; two is beyond the pale; three is absurd.

There are some other principles which you really ought to start following, but I don't want to turn this into a laundry-list. bobrayner (talk) 21:08, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trial transcripts are non–independent because they have arguments from parties which have a deep interest in the outcome of the case (and obviously no editorial independence). You can argue about court judgements though and such arguments have a place in talk pages of Wikipedia policies, not here. On a side note, it is uncivil and a bit odd to end with statements like "man/woman who styles himself/herself as" head of a cult etc. And "0/3"? Wikipedia is not a battleground. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 21:22, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What religious movement were you referring to? Surely, not Ananda Marga which describes itself as a social and spiritual movement (not religious or political). And independent tertiary sources describe it entirely as something else. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 21:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In various countries Ananda Marga is legally registered as a religious movement. So its key texts are considered as "Religious books" or "Sacred books". Do you understand now?--Cornelius383 (talk) 22:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As regards the documents produced in the article and the various academic sources that shows the adherence of the article at the WP notability criteria point 3 and 5 please read what I wrote before or simply take a new look at the article. We cannot transform an article into a boring list of sources.--Cornelius383 (talk) 22:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Court documents are primary sources. Having to fall back on interpretation of a court document to prove a point about one of the secondary notability guidelines further underlines that there's not enough real, independent sources which discuss the topic in depth. bobrayner (talk) 23:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding on Bob's comment— Sacred to a cult/organization or not the books are non–notable. If they were, you would have found significant coverage on them in reliable independent sources. Regarding WP:NBOOK (WP:BKCRIT), even assuming that the book meets 3 & 5, the guideline ends with: These criteria are presented as rules of thumb for easily identifying books that Wikipedia should probably have articles about. In almost all cases, a thorough search for independent, third-party reliable sources will be successful for a book meeting one or more of these criteria. However, meeting these criteria is not an absolute guarantee that Wikipedia should have a separate, stand-alone article entirely dedicated to the book. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 23:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but these are just your personal views that have nothing to do with the veracity and authority of the legal and academic sources produced. A system of rules exists to be respected and not interpreted according to the opinions of everyone. I inserted the kind of secondary sources requested from WP. And I've inserted several more than the minimum requested for WP notability. If you think that the Supreme Court of India (or of other Countries), or the President of the Indian Republic or other academic sources haven't any value this is only your personal opinion.--Cornelius383 (talk) 23:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In any event, I am glad that we crossed this threshold point, CK. You have finally recognized that there is a presumption of notability. As such, the burden of proof falls on the you, the accuser, rather than the article creator or article supporters. In other words, at this stage - and for all other books by P.R. Sarkar that meet either criterion 3 or 5 - it is up to you to prove non-notability rather than up to anyone else to prove notability! So kindly knock yourself out trying to show that the presumption of notability should not apply in such cases. Obviously, you have not made a "thorough search for independent, third-party reliable sources", or you would have found the court rulings. Please take as much time as you need on this matter. Naturally the spurious AfD should be withdrawn while you spin your wheels. --Abhidevananda (talk) 02:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abhidevananda, please stop making stuff up; Correct Knowledge did not mention a presumption of notability. Come back if you find any evidence of notability. "Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." bobrayner (talk) 02:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't put words in my mouth Abhidevananda. This is getting way too desperate. All the arguments have been laid, let's just wait for the closing admin. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 03:25, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Normally I do not ever vote in favor of an article that I wrote. But in this particular case I support the content of this article with my vote. 1)This book is the social treatise of a spiritual organization that exists in almost all Countries (and in several is legally recognised as a religion), 2)was written from a philosopher: a-that is considered prominent even by the president of India, b-that as a vast literary production on many languages (take a look on the Congress on-line Library), c-that is quoted in tens of academic secondary sources, d-that founded many humanitarian and social organizations (regularly recognised and registered like PROUT or AMURT etc.). Evidence of that is regularly inserted in the article with secondary sources that exceed undoubtedly the two.--Cornelius383 (talk) 03:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's actually "quoted in tens of secondary sources" then why did you have to resort to Ananda Marga court documents (copied into Google Docs), and a Scribd page written by a Sarkar follower (ie. neither a reliable source nor an independent one)? The article doesn't actually quote any secondary sources, because no secondary source has any coverage that's worth quoting. bobrayner (talk) 03:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - You don't understand my point. Please read again. In that particular point that you extrapolated out of the context I was speaking about the author, to show you his importance (he is quoted in many academic secondary sources and even from the Indian President..) and adherence with point (5) of WP notability criteria that alone should be enough to avoid cancellation of an article. But I've added also more secondary sources, like the legal ones that you quote, to show you that the book is a fundamental text of a religion: point (3) of WP notability criteria. Do you understand now?--Cornelius383 (talk) 04:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - You mean the primary sources where a Google Doc says that somebody from Amanda Marga made a statement to a court that something written by Sarkar is important to Sarkar followers? We need something from outside the bubble. Reliable, independent secondary sources. If somebody inside the bubble says that in a courtroom, the court doesn't magically make it more official & independent. bobrayner (talk) 04:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please read what I've said before and maintain respect for others and be constructive that is fundamental to WP. You have expressed your opinion. I consider your opinion an opinion. I have added all the secondary sources needed to show the adherence to point (3) and point (5) of WP notability, included many legal documents accepted from the Courts of different Countries and even expressed from the Supreme Court of India. The rules are rules. Let's the administrator decide now. Thanks--Cornelius383 (talk) 04:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nomination. Merge only if you must. About half the article is padding; there doesn't, imho, seem to be enough there to be worth merging. If it weren't for References, Footnotes, Citations and Sources it wouldn't even have a TOC. I might also point out that the article readable prose size is 189 words, while this debate is already 4328 words. And counting. David_FLXD (Talk) 05:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic... a new argument for deletion - the article has too few words and too few sections. To overcome this objection (perhaps not very substantial), all an editor would have to do is create a separate section for Caryacarya Part 1, Caryacarya Part 2, and Caryacarya Part 3, perhaps with a short description of the content of each book. I wonder how long the article creator should be given to carry out this little task before the guillotine falls on his article. :) --Abhidevananda (talk) 10:25, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually my argument is "as per nomination", i.e. lacking in notability and in reliable sources. For Cornelius383, see below, 3 sources have been added since the version I saw, but none of the new sources address the issue of notability or confirm any specifics of the content; they only confirm the existence of the work, which is not in dispute. For Abhinevananda, my point is first, there are more "footnotes", "citations", "sources" and "mentions in legal documents" than there is readable content in the article. Secondly, it is not the brevity of the article that is at issue; there are many good little stubs that are far shorter. It is the proportion of the small size of the article in relation to the enormous bulk of the debate. Certain people, naming no names, are putting more a lot more effort into arguing about the article on AfD than they are into improving the article. I do think the article was nominated rather early in its development; I would have held off for at least another week or two, given the holiday period (assuming I remembered to check the creation date). That said, however, I see no real prospect of improving the article by allowing more time. IF, however, someone can point me to a real, independent and reliable source which shows notability, and offers a real basis for improvement to the article, I will consider changing my present position. David_FLXD (Talk) 15:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

article creator's comment: this is a new argument. If the article is too short or poor I can change it and add more contents no problem. But I need some time to do that.--Cornelius383 (talk) 11:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

article creator's comment: I think that David_FLXD have seen the previous version of some ours ago when the user Bobrainer deleted many of the sources that I've added. Now I have restored all hoping more fairness. Thanks--Cornelius383 (talk) 13:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When you've been caught out misusing sources, edit-warring to restore them is a relly bad idea. bobrayner (talk) 13:56, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted some sources that I inserted on the article and probably David_FLXD have seen the previous version without the sources that I inserted. Please do not do it until the debate is over. Thanks--Cornelius383 (talk) 14:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One source doesn't discuss caryacarya at all, one source doesn't say what you're citing it for, and one is selfpublished (on Scribd) by a Sarkar follower. They certainly make the article look well-sourced at first glance, though, so I can understand the appeal to keep them in until the AfD is over; but we cannot allow sources to be abused over and over again. Once those are gone, the remaining sources are not independent at all. bobrayner (talk) 14:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is strictly your opinion. Your action to delete the sources when the article is on AfD discussion is deplorable. And the language that often you use and your way of trying to delete all that is linked with this argument too. Various user have complained your behavior. Please keep an appropriate behavior and respect others and their work.--Cornelius383 (talk) 14:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was merely stating some facts about crappy sources. If your opinion is that those sources are fine, then en.wikipedia's policies are sadly incompatible with many of your opinions, and you may find it less stressful to work on some other website. bobrayner (talk) 14:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please stop badgering everybody who disagrees with you on these AfDs. It's really not helpful. bobrayner (talk) 14:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think that this should be kept open for at least another week. I've had conversations with Cornelius383 at my talk page and theirs. They do not yet understand the system here is that it is likely to be judged based on wp:GNG and do not understand wp:GNG. So we are not seeing any identification of any wp:GNG-suitable sources that may exist. This needs another week for them to understand and then identify those if they exist or for somebody to do or review such. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds reasonable to me. Cornelius383 and I do not see eye-to-eye on sources and notability, but maybe a little extra time will help the picture become clearer, one way or the other. bobrayner (talk) 15:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness here is at least one apparently independent source which shows that one of the volumes which are the subject of the article is being made use of, and incidentally confirms some of the content. I don't think it's enough to show notability on its own, but it's better than nothing. I've added it to the article under See also. David_FLXD (Talk) 17:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I cannot conceive of any reason why anyone (or WP) would not consider the ruling of a judge to be an independent and verifiable source. So, for example, the ruling of the honorable Michael Martinez, Judge of the Denver District Court, that I quoted extensively above makes it crystal clear that Caryacarya is highly notable as it was clearly a deciding factor in the ruling. But if a judge's ruling is not an independent and verifiable source, whereas NPR is, then perhaps this newspaper article from India about an Indian Supreme Court ruling will establish notability.--Abhidevananda (talk) 23:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody who actually reads that source will see that it's about the tandava dance rather than caryacarya. bobrayner (talk) 23:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. Just because the Caryacarya is mentioned with Ananda Marga in a ruling on tandava dance it doesn't automatically become notable. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 23:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BK. And while we're at it, the increasing desperation of Cornelius383 is very much giving the appearance of COI / SPAM. In the unlikely event that the article is kept, which I don't think it should, Cornelius383 should stay away from editing it as he appears too close to the subject to edit constructively. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:38, 15 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 no consensus. After three relists and plenty of input there is still no consensus either way. Michig (talk) 09:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

World Chiropractic Alliance

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

Subject fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP. Has links but Relies on references to primary sources and sources affiliated with the subject.. A google search shows only press releases and insufficient trivial coverage from non reliable secondary sources. Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising". Hu12 (talk) 06:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article was previously a vehicle for criticism, but has been somewhat whitewashed. I suspect a previous version that is improved might be better. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on, this AfD violates procedure. There has been no serious discussion on the article's talk page, and an AfD is not the proper place to solve any deficiencies. A discussion should be started there and editors given a chance to fix the matter. If that fails, THEN start an AfD, but only AFTER due warning there. Please delete this page and start over at the talk page. This happens to be a very notable (within chiropractic) chiropractic organization which protects the original (pseudoscientific) chiropractic philosophies. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken. There is no requirement that anyone discuss on the talk page before bringing to AfD. Technically, there is no absolute requirement that you even look for sources. As long as the AfD is in good faith, it meets procedural requirements. We aren't a bureaucracy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:52, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are both correct. I wasn't aware that it had been tagged for so long and just saw this AfD pop up on my watchlist. Neither did I notice that notability was part of the tag. Procede. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:14, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The WP:BURDEN lies with the editors of the article and may freely edit the article during an AfD. The fact that {{notability}} and {{refimprove}} have been tagged on that article since June 2011 has given the editors a significant portion of time to improve the necessary sources that meet the criteria specified in WP:NGO. In no such time has any notable third party sources been added and this AfD is fully valid. Mkdw ^talk 09:33, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 09:59, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 09:59, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added to the article a few references to academic sources from outside the world of chiropractic. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:55, 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 21:10, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Substantial additions made,[6] so hopefully we can close this AfD as a save. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:06, 25 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 00:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looking at the new sourcing, I see mentions and links to the general topic but not this organization. Seems like source padding, which is fine for facts I suppose, but doesn't support the notion of notability. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis, would you please point to any edits/sources which meet your description? I haven't done such a thing on purpose and want my edits to be up to par. Thanks...and Happy New Year! BTW, notability will be mostly in the world of chiropractic. The organization is quite notable there because of its controversial nature. They are always in a fight with the rest of the profession. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The organization may exist, however asserting that they are "quite notable" without proof is unlikely to convince anyone. Sources may have been added, however insufficient and trivial coverage fails WP:CORPDEPTH.--Hu12 (talk) 18:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hu12, they are quite notable within the chiropractic world. Outside of that world they aren't notable. Of course when chiropractic organizations have been invited to send representatives to official government meetings, they have been invited. I could find such references, if that would help. Personally I have always despised this organization because of their promotion of the original chiropractic quackery, but that happens to be one of the things that make them notable to all, both within and without chiropractic, who deal with the profession. They are fringe, just as chiropractic is fringe. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, the burden to demonstrate which sources demonstrate notability is upon you, and is a much shorter list. Perhaps you can point to those instead. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis, my request still stands. You wrote above: "mentions and links to the general topic but not this organization." Which ones would those be? If I added them, they should name the organization or its officers. Did I make a mistake? Please provide the wordings, refs or diffs. You made the claim, so the burden of proof is on you. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I had some time and went through ALL the references, and the statement that "mentions and links to the general topic but not this organization" is not true. ALL references refer to the WCA and/or its officers. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A source that "mentions" the organization is worthless for determining notability. Sources should be significant coverage to establish notability. A mention is passing doesn't fit the standard for inclusion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've developed a bit more, and also included sources showing they are notable enough to be recognized by the United States Department of Veterans Affairs, which included them on their "Chiropractic Advisory Committee," which was used to determine how to include chiropractic services in the VA. If recognition by the U.S. government isn't notable enough for inclusion here, then I guess I don't understand you. You'll need to reword our rules for inclusion to make it clear that recognition (not mere "mention") by the U.S. government is not a "notable" thing. You seem to be stretching "significant coverage" far beyond what the wording implies, which is to prevent OR.-- Brangifer (talk) 23:53, 5 January 2013 (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 00:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - having read the discussion above, the article (of course) and many of the references, I'm not really convinced the subject meets WP:ORGDEPTH. Honours given to organisation members (like one member being appointed to a Government committee) don't really confer notability on the other organisations of which that person happens to also be a member. A good number of the other organisations of which committee members are also concurrently members are not covered here, nor should they be on that basis. Remember, the subject organisation was not appointed, a member was. That would contribute to the notability of the individual, not the other organisations with which she is affiliated, in my opinion. Significant coverage requirements do exist to prevent the need for original research to extract notability (by falsely extrapolating substantive "facts" from directory listings or passing mentions) but it is also used as a (subjective) standard to determine if reliable sources (news media and the like) consider the subject notable enough to require/justify coverage. In this case, the article seems to be supported by plenty of sources that verify the importance of the issues in which the subject is involved, but few provide the depth of coverage in reliable sources that we would expect for a notable organisation. However, I am conscious of the need to present both sides of particular issues in the interests of a neutral encyclopedia and that coverage which does exist suggests it is the counter-voice to a more broadly accepted view. I would still like to see more coverage but I'm not about to suggest that a valid argument for keeping the article absolutely does not exist. Stalwart111 01:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, her appointment does give her a certain sort of notability, but it only happened because she was representing the WCA. The VA needed representatives from chiropractic organizations, and she was chosen as their representative, IOW THEY are notable, not her. I had never heard of her before this happened, but the WCA was and is always creating controversy in the profession. They, with the ICA, are the profession's "problem" children. The only reason they are not better known is for the reason I have stated - they are an organization pushing an increasingly fringe (yet held by a significant minority) agenda within a fringe profession - ergo, they would be totally unknown to anyone who isn't familiar with the profession, and not mentioned in the mainstream press, but they are quite well-known to anyone who is familiar with chiropractic, and usually mentioned in the same breath as another group (the oldest chiro org), the International Chiropractors Association (ICA). The ICA also pushes the original quackery of vertebral subluxation. Progressive members of the profession wish that both groups would disappear, like the dinosaurs they are, yet they succeed because they are preaching the doctrine of pure and original chiropractic. Religious beliefs die hard.
If we delete these articles, the subject of chiropractic will be whitewashed here. I do not accuse anyone here of such an agenda, but am just stating the consequences of hasty deletions. This is a FRINGE subject, and as such we need to exercise caution. Notability in the FRINGE world of chiropractic has been established. If we continue to provide more evidence, this will look like a total hit/smear job, simply because most of what they do is wacko fringe stuff. I think the few mentions are good enough. I'm not interested in restoring this article to the hit job it once was, or to the sales brochure it was for a while.. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I get where you're coming from and DGG has expanded on the point I made further. I'm still not convinced but I think it's a better argument than any suggestion this subject meets coverage-based notability criteria. Sorry, but regardless of which is marginally more notable, you'll not convince me the subject gains notability from one member's appointment. Except for where the WCA claims as much, I can't see anywhere where USDVA says she was appointed because of her membership, rather than her personal expertise. Had they done so, a related profile of the organisation would likely allow it to meet coverage-based notability criteria. But they haven't, so it doesn't... in my opinion. Stalwart111 06:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article does look like it's been improved during the AFD, and that's something we should always encourage, but I'm just not seeing that this passes our organisation notability guidelines. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew, please explain what is lacking. How does a fringe organization establish notability? Multiple mentions in many different ways in the publications of its profession is usually considered sufficient. Representation on a government advisory committee for that profession is above and beyond that. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm supporting this on the basis of NPOV. We need to have some degree of balanced coverage of the various factions of a movement, and this faction is substantial enough to include; an article on their organization is a good way of doing it. They seem the most significant organization of their sort. I'm not sure about the neutrality of the article; the last sections in particular seem to deal in excessive detail with some minor non-current matters. DGG ( talk ) 05:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Is the information accurate? Apparently, yes. Is the information presented verifiable? Yes. Is Wikipedia better off with or without this piece? With it. I am firmly in the "Chiropractic is Snake Oil" camp, but that shouldn't matter a whit. This appears to be a legitimate, albeit highly opinionated and aggressive, professional organization. Carrite (talk) 17:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I note that nobody in this discussion has yet addressed the sources from the University of North Carolina Press, the Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine and Milbank Quarterly that I added before this was relisted for the first time. None of those are in any way fringe or pro-chiropractic sources. Is it really too much to ask that participants in AfD discussions address previous comments directly, rather than us all talking past each other? I would be perfectly happy to see those sources debunked, but not to have them ignored. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's true - the sources have mostly been addressed in the collective rather than individually. I read those sources (the linked ones) and thought they were good, solid sources for verifying certain claims. But I didn't think they offered much by way of in-depth (significant) coverage. But the point I made (one that has since been made) is that other criteria might be valid, given the information presented can be verified (even by a collection of passing mentions). Not sure what you mean by people talking past each other, though. Stalwart111 21:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Phil, you are correct, and I fear I have contributed to the confusion. While fringe organizations are often ignored by sources outside the internal debates, these are sources that have noted the WCA's role and it's POV. Good finds. The sources are solid and clearly reliable. WCA is certainly more notable than minor cartoon characters which have their whole articles here. BTW, the article by Homola was first published at Medscape, before being hosted at SRAM.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Neohumanism. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 03:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neohumanism in a Nutshell

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

Apparently non-notable book. Lots of ghits - people selling it. Seems to lack in-depth coverage by independent sources. bobrayner (talk) 00:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

article creator's comment: This books series contain discourses on Neohumanism given in various occasion by the Indian Philosopher Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar

It plays a particular relevance for the detailed explanation of many concepts related with the neohumanistic theory of the author. I wrote it about half an hour ago and I need to expand and insert new sources on it. Anyway I've now inserted the "under construction" template. Thanks--Cornelius383 (talk) 01:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless sources are provided that show why these books are notable as books. Otherwise there is an article on Neohumanism itself, which is the books' author's personal philosophy and the real topic in question. BigJim707 (talk) 01:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This book series meets the WP notability criteria on two grounds: (3) The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement. (5) The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable. Yes, there is an article on Neohumanism. But that article is not a book review. It is of value to readers to gain insight into the vast array of information presented in the numerous books (of compiled discourses by the propounder) that amplify the subject. It is rather surprising to me that someone would nominate an article for deletion within half an hour of its submission. On the other hand, it does not surprise me to see Bob Rayner's name at the top of this AfD, given his history with other related subjects (like PROUT). --Abhidevananda (talk) 10:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Abhidevananda (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]

Do you have any evidence to support this notion? This would be evidence from independent sources. bobrayner (talk) 11:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see Cornelius383 has added an "academical" source: It's in the gigantic "references" section of this PDF, although not actually cited in the body of the thesis. That falls a long way short of the GNG. bobrayner (talk) 13:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bob, there is no requirement for independent sources in respect to item (3) at Wikipedia:Notability_(books). What is required are "reliable" sources. And, as someone who frequently gives lectures on the subject of neohumanism and often participates in discussions pertaining to humanistic concerns - easily verified by a google search - I think you may trust my statement that this series of books has been of immense value to all those who want to understand this subject... unless, of course, you choose to question the good faith of my words. :) --Abhidevananda (talk) 14:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no doubt that people within the Sarkarverse believe that some of Sarkar's voluminous content is important. However, this highlights the neutrality problem whilst contributing nothing to the GNG. I would invite uninvolved editors to have a look at that "academic" source - one bullet point in a very long list in an obscure PDF. bobrayner (talk) 17:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My position has nothing to do with "academic sources", Bob. I have cited two grounds on which this series of books meets the WP criteria for notability in respect to books. You have said nothing that would gainsay those two grounds. Rather, you have just conceded that "people within the Sarkarverse believe that some of Sarkar's voluminous content is important", which effectively substantiates the first of the two grounds for notability that I stated. As only one ground is required, this discussion is now moot. The person who placed the AfD on the article on grounds of notability has now accepted notability by WP standards. --Abhidevananda (talk) 04:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop putting words in my mouth. I just pointed out that the nearest thing to serious, substantial independent coverage seems to be one line in a long, indiscriminate list of books. If that were enought o make a topic notable then we'd create an article on every person in the phonebook. bobrayner (talk) 10:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No one is putting words in your mouth, Bob. Unfortunately, no one is putting words in your ears either. :) The notability of this series of books is substantiated by the two criteria that I mentioned - the two criteria that you choose to ignore - and not the discriminatory notions that you inappropriately seek to impose. --Abhidevananda (talk) 13:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

article creator's comment: I've added in the article academic sources (Bussey -Aug. 2007, p.28), (Bussey -2008, p.106), (Shambushivananda -Sept. 2011, p.51) plus the quotation on the presentation's epigram at the Faculty of Ecology of AMG. About the historical value of Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar and his huge literary production in the different fields of knowledge there is no doubt. For this reason I believe that any of his written works should be considered notable. In other words at least point 3 and 5 of WP criteria notability are respected.--Cornelius383 (talk) 14:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ I don't the book meets either of the notability criteria proposed above. In the first case I can find no mention at all in reliable sources supporting it making a "significant contribution". In the second case although the author was influential, I read "so historically significant" in the policy as meaning people of the stature of Gandhi, Plato or Shakespeare. Mcewan (talk) 12:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mcewan, pardon me, but your position is extraordinarily subjective, in other words, not at all neutral. Who is it that you consider to be "reliable sources" in respect to the contribution of this series of books to Ananda Marga Pracaraka Samgha? And what is your scale of measurement in respect to historical significance or your basis for setting a minimum standard? --Abhidevananda (talk) 16:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well I assure you I have no inherent bias on this and am trying to be subjective. However it is my opinion that the sources in the article are not persuasive that the book is itself sufficiently notable to warrant an article. They are relatively minor works that make scant reference to the book which is just one of many they reference. I have done my own research to find sources but that has been unsuccessful. As to the historical significance scale - that's just my reading of the policy. Mcewan (talk) 18:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

article creator's comment: 1) Academic sources are reliable: these are infact normally considered the best for an encyclopedia. I believe, however, that we must refer to some rules, and rules by definition must be clear: Point (3) of WPN seems to me sufficiently clear: "The book has been considered by reliable sources (and we have the academic quotation in the article) to have made a significant contribution to a notable motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement" (please note that Sarkar founded some international movements and philosophical theories who have had, and are having, a great impact on the social and cultural side).

2)Historical significance of the author (point 5 at WPN): Giani Zail Singh, seventh president of India, has said about Sarkar: "Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar was one of the greatest modern philosophers of India" (see the academic quotation on Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar's article incipit).

Mcevan: if you say that the book don't meets either of the notability criteria proposed above you have to demostrate it opposing you references at my academic references. Otherwise your statements are only respectable opinions: that is, in other words, claims that are not supported by the same evidence that supported my statments.

Anyway, to definitely solve the "querelle", I can try to find more quotation and more sources to add in the article. Sorry for my long comment. Thanks--Cornelius383 (talk) 16:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes ultimately what I write here is just my opinion. However the burden of proof for notability is on you and I am not at present convinced. But good luck findng better sources - if you do I will be genuinely pleased. Mcewan (talk) 18:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Storm in a teapot. And unfortunately more discrimination. DezDeMonaaa (talk) 06:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)— DezDeMonaaa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note to closing admin: Alas, the DezDeMonaaa account has only ever made two edits - to these two AfDs - and in doing so has a precocious knowledge of enwiki norms & markup, and also makes similar points to the only other editor who has !voted "keep", who in turn appears to have been canvassed. bobrayner (talk) 11:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: Clearly, DezDeMonaaa is a newbie (as indeed am I to a great extent). Accordingly, it seems to me that Bob's remark here is in violation of Wikipedia protocol in general and in specific for AfDs (see WP:BITE). As to Bob's hasty slur about my having been canvassed, that only indicates to me that this person - the person behind this frivolous AfD - needs to take a step back from all matters connected with what he call the "Sarkarverse". His rash accusations and draconian actions are compelling evidence of an unbalanced (non-neutral) POV. --Abhidevananda (talk) 05:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Surely any closing admin will be competent to see through Abhidevananda's fiction; a newbie whose only edits are two neatly-formatted keep !votes on related AfDs is clearly no newbie at all. bobrayner (talk) 03:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

article creator's comment: To dispel any doubt I've added two more quotations. I hope this is enough... I could go on but common sense tells me that we cannot transform the article in a long list of citations. Anyway the article provide only basic informations and I can add more details. Note for Bob: no canvassing, me and this user are working on the same Sarkar's project. It was a normal comunication as we use in WP--Cornelius383 (talk) 13:49, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Neohumanism. Changed Vote. I still don't think these books meet notability criteria, but they may be important in the development of Sarkar's Neohumanism, which has its own article. However that article does not mention the books except as a 'source' (with no inline citations). This does not support the "significant contribution" argument. Neither incidentally does the title "in a Nutshell" which usually implies a post factum summary rather than a contributing work. But rather than fighting this AfD I suggest you should concentrate on integrating the books and their influence into perhaps a new section of the Neohumaism article. Over time that section may naturally become a candidate for a spinoff article. Mcewan (talk) 14:35, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

McEwan, that makes sense to me... although I would have to do a substantial rewrite of the "NH in a Nutshell" article in order to integrate it into the Neohumanism article. My opinion remains that there is a significant contribution; but it is hard to substantiate, because this series of books amounts to a compilation of articles from various sources over a long span of time. The reason why the books in the series only appear as a 'source' in the Neohumanism article is that I prefer to cite the original source rather than a derivative source, regardless of whether that derivative source led me to identify relevant content. So, while I would prefer to have a separate article for this series - while I still think that it merits that - I could live with a merge compromise. However, with respect to the other AfD levied by Bob Raynor - "Ananda Marga Caryacarya (Parts 1, 2, and 3)"-Discussion for deletion - a merger is simply out of the question. Indeed, that frivolous AfD - and the fact that Bob Raynor has not yet withdrawn it - only reenforces my sense (based on various other factors) that he is not at all acting with neutrality, much less rationality when it comes to matters pertaining to P. R. Sarkar. McEwan, at the risk of being accused of 'canvassing' by Bob, kindly have a look at that other AfD. --Abhidevananda (talk) 16:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abhidevananda, I have looked at that other AfD, and found its subject too complex and (from the edit history of Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar, too controversial), for me to contribute given the time I have available. Specifically I am worried that a separate article for that book may be a proxy for the doctrinal disagreements manifest in Sarkar's page. So regretfully I do not think I can help with this. But thank you for your positive response to my proposal above. I will continue to watch the related articles and help where I can. Mcewan (talk) 22:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, McEwan... I have no idea what you are talking about or why you think the issue is complex, but okay. I do not see any reason why an article describing the three volumes of Caryacarya - the clearly designated social code of Ananda Marga - would result in controversy or doctrinal disagreements. But, regardless, the question raised is notability, and AFAIK there is no exclusionary rule on account of anticipated controversy. You might just as well argue that an article about the Bible, the Koran, the New Testament, the Old Testament, and so on should be prohibited because of doctrinal disagreements... but that obviously has not happened.--Abhidevananda (talk) 02:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

article creator's comment: the rule of consensus, when based on a constructive, respectful and rational approach it's very useful to reach shared decisions. The last proposal seems to go on this direction. Tanks--Cornelius383 (talk) 21:14, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete / merge Unless proponents can add and point out sources of the type required for wp:notability. In-depth coverage by secondary sources. If that occurs, then it should be kept. BTW one of the "references" given is a Wikipedia article. Another has only page numbers, i.e. no info such as the name or author of the reference. North8000 (talk) 17:37, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

article creator's comment: Sorry North8000, I've promptly corrected the error: page numbers now refers at the right source. Anyway what I wrote in my last comment is still valid and I agree to merge the article with the neohumanism article.Thanks--Cornelius383 (talk) 18:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge and redirect to ~~Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar~~ Neohumanism. I agree that significant secondary source coverage is required for a stand-alone article. The assertion has been made that this exists, but I don't see it. Disclosure: This Afd was mentioned in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Progressive utilization theory. Location (talk) 17:48, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, have edited my comment to alter the merge target in line with DGG's comments below. Location (talk) 22:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge with ~~Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar~~ Neohumanism. I agree with North8000 and Location the book does not find significant coverage in secondary sources. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 20:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After reading DGG's comment below I've replaced Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar with Neohumanism. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 18:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

article creator's comment: as I agree with the decision to merge, at the same time I have to point out the outrageous statements of Bobrayner that have been noticed also by other users. As you can see at the incipit of this page ("Lots of ghits - from people selling it") and as I said here: "Outrageous statements of Bobrayner" and here this user's statments are strongly insulting. As a WP editor I'm trying to do my best here, I give respect and I pretend respect by other users too.--Cornelius383 (talk) 22:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as eminently not notable as shown above. Collect (talk) 02:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
merge to neohumanism. although I deplore the extensive creation of articles on the overall topic or Sarkar's theories, there is o advantage in trying to merge everything into one article on the individual. There's an intermediate step, which to group material by subject. Although I recognize a certain inter-relatedness between his work on various topics, and in a sense his philosophy is based on that inter-relatedness, it still helps to consider distinct aspects separately. We should not counter one extreme by another. And I would like to give some acknowledgement to Corenelius383's recognition above that not everything that he wroteshould be the subject for an individual article. DGG ( talk ) 03:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge seems sensible, per DGG. Bearian (talk) 21:38, 14 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. Consensus is for keeping, and the arguments that it should be expanded to include further details would add value. Michig (talk) 08:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Magnum pistol cartridges

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

A list of articles that seems to have no major purpose other than to duplicate an existing category, and fails every point of WP:LISTPURP. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and suggest nom reads linked page. Redundancy of lists and categories is beneficial because the two categories work together - WP:LISTPURP --No unique names 20:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Easily meets the requirements of WP:LISTPURP. Ryan Vesey 20:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:LISTPURP. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To clarify my nomination, I look at WP:LISTPURP and WP:AOAL (which the previous one ultimately refers to) and I see nothing in that provides any value whatsoever beyond what any reader might get when they visit Category:Magnum pistol cartridges. I also consulted WP:OUTCOMES and noted that

However, this criterion does not mean that it's always necessary or valid to have both a list and a category for any given grouping of topics. ... Lists are sometimes also deleted because they duplicate the functionality of a category and the category serves the purpose better.

The list in this case appears to serve no purpose other than to duplicate the category. That's as far as the rationale for the nomination, and other editors will decide whether or not this needs to be deleted. There is also the matter of the creator's behavior, which I am thinking of bringing to the attention of WP:AN at this point, however that is not relevant to the AFD. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A list without any annotations that serves little if no use to readers. The info is best covered by the articles listed at Magnum. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. WP:LISTPURP states that lists are for readers or for editors to develop WP. The list in question does nothing for WP development and I fail to see what use the article is to readers. So can editors who quote WP:LISTPURP as a reason to keep the list please give reasons. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:06, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it says that "Some lists are useful for Wikipedia development purposes" (emphasis mine). --No unique names 01:43, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, yep. Some lists are good for development, some lists are good for readers and some lists are neither. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I somehow missed the part of your statement above about not seeing a usefulness to readers. My apologies. I blame it on the season's rushed pace. --No unique names 15:19, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, although I am not a huge fan of lists. --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 08:31, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to cite a policy or guideline to qualify this vote? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:36, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I don't see how it meets WP:LISTPURP, and I don't see how this list can really be useful for editors or readers. The same material is already contained in the disambig page at Magnum. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]

So 8 entries under "Handguns" accurately and completely covers the information presented in a list of 20 articles (at least 19 cartridges)? That seems quite illogical. --No unique names 01:18, 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, MBisanz ^talk 02:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: unnecessary duplication of a category. If the cat is not complete, it should be updated by adding to the related articles on weaponry/ammunition etc. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:53, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Could be extended to provide info beyond a simple list of entries, e.g. including details on each cartridge, making it sortable: this is why lists have value above categories. --Colapeninsula (talk) 23:11, 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, MBisanz ^talk 00:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Nouniquenames. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 00:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Can and should be used to give some actual information beyond the name, but a list of notable things of a specific notable type is an appropriate article. DGG ( talk ) 05:45, 6 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. Michig (talk) 08:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hosts of The Screen Savers

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

This article duplicates information already found here. There is no information in this article that is not already found (pretty much word for word) in the main article for The Screen Savers. MTLskyline (talk) 00:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no redirect Completely duplicative fork, not a normal section breakout style for television articles. Nate • (chatter) 01:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems to have been split off without any real reason. I suppose you could {{main}} tag this out from the parent article for the sake of ease-of-reading but the parent article doesn't seem like a big enough article to justify that. Stalwart111 01:59, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the information is now apart of the main article. Nhlarry (talk) 03:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 6 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. MBisanz ^talk 20:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TJ O'Brien

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

~~Fighter fails WP:NMMA. Please note that exhibition fights dont count toward notability. JadeSnake (talk) 13:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]

Strikeout added because JadeSnake was a confirmed sockpuppet of an already banned user.Willdawg111 (talk) 20:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment TUF fights count toward WP:NMMA. If you read the guidelines, all that is required is for them to be Professional fights and put on by a top tier organization which the UFC is. There are a couple people who keep incorrectly saying TUF fights don't count but they appear to have a lack of understanding about how sanctioned, professional MMA fights are done.Willdawg111 (talk) 15:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:MMA, WP:ATHLETE and WP:NMMA by fighting in live UFC events twice and competing in a very notable TV show (The Ultimate Fighter) which was a professional bout, even if not considered so by the NSAC and is therefore counted towards the above policies. Also recently fought for the World Series of Fighting which aired on NBC Sports Network and whilst that was the promotion's debut event, it is was still notable for airing on network television. Paralympiakos (talk) 15:38, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NMMA as not having three (fully-professional) fights in a top-tier promotion as listed at WP:MMANOT. --TreyGeek (talk) 23:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He fought 3x on tv. 2x ufc, 1x WSOF on NBC. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 00:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You do realise that MMANOT is being misinterpreted though, right? If we're only counting top tier, then what on earth is the point in having a second tier? The whole point of MMANOT was that the second tier had some impact too. NMMA was just a further entry that highlighted the bastardisation of what MMANOT was meant to be. Amateur and professional are absolute terms btw; there is no degree to them. A bout can't be "sort of professional". It is or it isn't. Paralympiakos (talk) 23:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:MMA and WP:NMMA. Sepulwiki (talk) 21:14, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. Fails WP:NMMA, WP:ATHLETE, and WP:BLP --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:36, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - @Sepulwiki, WP:MMA is a project, not a guideline or policy, and he do fails WP:NMMA. --LlamaAl (talk) 00:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA. Article can be recreated if he gets another top tier fight. Jakejr (talk) 05:45, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily passes WP:GNG and WP:V as per non trivial refs here(nbc), here (USATODAY), here, and here. It would be somewhat disturbing to see this notable person deleted from Wikipedia because they supposedly do not pass one guideline in WP:NMMA yet passing WP policy and other guidelines PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 12:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Taking into account the above refs, and keeping in mind WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, will an admin do the right thing and close this as a keep? PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 14:21, 5 January 2013 (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 00:24, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If this article is closed as a keep, I will petition for an article to be created about *me*, and my son too, as we both have trophies in "international" martial arts events. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Added WP:SOURCES to the article with citations. Definitely passes the WP:GNG now with the extra refs — Preceding unsigned comment added by PortlandOregon97217 (talk • contribs)

Pre fight promotional (and post fight results) articles are simply routine coverage and don't satisfy the significant coverage criteria of GNG. Jakejr (talk) 23:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NMMA. --LlamaAl (talk) 01:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He fails WP:NMMA and the article's sources are just routine sports reporting, so he fails WP:GNG. Mdtemp (talk) 16:49, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Mdtemp's reasoning. Papaursa (talk) 20:34, 12 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 no consensus. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 03:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Watson

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

~~Fighter fails WP:NMMA. Please note that exhibition fights dont count toward notability. JadeSnake (talk) 13:09, 29 December 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]

Strikeout added because JadeSnake was a confirmed sockpuppet of an already banned user.Willdawg111 (talk) 20:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please read WP:TUF for compelling reasons why TUF fights should count, and if they don't, why they enhance a fighters ability to meet WP:GNG, which Kyle Watson does PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 00:59, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment TUF fights count toward WP:NMMA. If you read the guidelines, all that is required is for them to be Professional fights and put on by a top tier organization which the UFC is. There are a couple people who keep incorrectly saying TUF fights don't count but they appear to have a lack of understanding about how sanctioned, professional MMA fights are done.

Keep - You're supposed to notify the page creator. Passes WP:MMANOT and WP:NMMA through having two UFC fights at live events and multiple in The Ultimate Fighter. Is a semi-finalist from that show, so his semi-final bout is recorded by the UFC and considered to be a professional, NON-exhibition bout, so he has his three bouts. Is the jiu-jitsu trainer at the HIT Squad, one of the most notable training facilities in the sport. Passes WP:ATHLETE due to his multiple jiu-jitsu world tournament championships. Paralympiakos (talk) 15:32, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable. Fails WP:NMMA, WP:ATHLETE, and WP:BLP--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:35, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject fails WP:NMMA. --LlamaAl (talk) 00:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He fails WP:NMMA. Article can be recreated if he gets another top tier fight. Jakejr (talk) 05:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG because of his Pan Am + world championship participation. His bodogfight, has multiple UFC fights, fought on the ultimate fighter,What more does this guy need? PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 00:54, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually if you read the article it's not Pan-Am it's just Pan (pan what?). Also, there's no indication he competed at the IBJJF world championships--your link merely says he's going to. He's not listed at the IBJJF website for the event (which only lists the top 4) nor is it clear that just competing at that event is sufficient to show notability. Based on WP:MANOTE I'd say it doesn't. Jakejr (talk) 02:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pan championship; You are welcome. Next, Go here, Hit control+f, and type in Kyle Watson, and see that he was the champion of his division. Are people really that unaware of how to use a search engine properly? --PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 08:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Here is a Sports Illustrated article involving Kyle Watson you should read. It offers more than a trivial mention of him as well. I really hate to pile on, but I just can't help myself. USA today thought one of his fights was important enough to cover. Here is another USA Today article with non trivial coverage of Watson PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 08:18, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment also medaled in the IBJJF no-gi world championship in 2007. This is the highest level of this sport PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 08:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Competing as an underbelt is not the highest level. The other sources you mention are fight results (routine coverage) or a list of the various TUF fighters and what might happen to them. None shows significant coverage of him. Jakejr (talk) 21:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pfft, and underbelt? I've never heard this term before, perhaps a little Original Research on your part? To me, the highest level means the tournament itself not which belt you are at. He medaled in the highest level of his class PortlandOregon97217 ([[User

talk:PortlandOregon97217|talk]]) 23:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

If you know so little about martial arts that you've never heard the term underbelt (aka "under belt"--all ranks below black belt) then I wonder how you can be so positive about what constitutes notable martial arts events. Nothing but the black belt division could even be considered as fighting at the highest level. Jakejr (talk) 03:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you can produce a source about the underbelt, at this point, your editing is being disruptive. I understand you think that the Brown Belt is automatically excluded for notability reasons. But you have presented no reason for me to agree with you, because he won his division at the highest level of competition and this is verifiable. That in conjunction with his other refs and he is a solid keep PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 03:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not disruptive to point out that he did not compete at the highest level. The site you referenced shows he was competing as a purple belt and that is not the highest level. Martial arts tournaments are divided by belt levels so that beginners don't compete with experts. The highest level is black belt, anything else is not the highest level. Anyone familiar with martial arts competition would agree with that. This isn't the first time you've accused me of something--at an earlier AFD you questioned the competence of those disagreeing with you and now I'm being disruptive by stating pertinent facts. Jakejr (talk) 04:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

i was only objecting to your underbelt term which sounded like rhetoric. I only disagree with you on your interpretation of a guideline. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 04:23, 6 January 2013 (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 00:24, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - For pete's sakes *I* have two trophies from "national" martial arts events sponsored by "international" organizations! Do I get an article? Not everyone who wins a little medal or trophy in any event in the world gets to have a Wikipedia article. Some of these articles (such as this one) consist of nothing but obscure awards in obscure events. There are next to no sources or citations, and have no place in Wikipedia. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 02:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rebuttal- SO I take it your awards are in a database? But were you on television for an extended period of time? and if so, is it verifiable with WP:SOURCES? Watson was, and he does. Why arent you taking all aspects of his notability into consideration? He is generally notable as per WP:GNG

Please review the latest reliable independent WP:SOURCES I added to the article. It really should put him over the top PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 03:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Passes martial artist notabilityWP:MANOTE with his repeated medaling in significant events. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 02:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:NMMA. He doesn't meet WP:MANOTE since he wasn't competing at the top level of his sport. Many martial arts discussions have agreed that only adult black belt titles can show notability. Mdtemp (talk) 17:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete He's close, but he doesn't meet WP:NMMA. He hasn't even competed at the highest level as a grappler, so he doesn't meet WP:MANOTE, and the sources are routine sports coverage or TUF episode recaps so he doesn't pass WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 05:06, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Per WP:MANOTE, one criteria for notability is "Repeated medalist in another significant event;- (e.g. competitors from multiple nations or significant national tournament, not an internal school champion)." Has multiple medals in variuos international BJJ competitions, including the Pan Ams, No-Gi World Championships and International Masters/Seniors Tournament in Brazil. Fails WP:NMMA IMO and needs more sourcing for his grappling career though, but doesn't need his MMA career to pass. Luchuslu (talk) 20:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I don't see any mention on WP:MANOTE that says a fighter has to compete at the "highest level," just that they have to medal in significant tournaments. Just because it's been part of discussions on the WP:WPMA talk page doesn't mean it's part of the essay. Luchuslu (talk) 20:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First, it's not just been part of the WPMA talk page, it's been part of dozens of martial arts AFD discussions. Second, there's two aspects of "highest level" to be considered when you're talking martial arts. The first, and one that's always been supported, is that non black belt competitions don't show notability. A green belt beating other green belts does not show notability. The second aspect is the one mentioned at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Levan Razmadze. Levan was a black belt competing against other black belts and you made the case for notability based on his successes at competitions that were not the highest level (i.e., Olympics or world championships), but had some significance as international competitions. I tend to think the "highest level" must meet both aspects, but I have no doubt that white or green or purple belts do not achieve notability by beating other beginners or intermediate students. WP:NSPORTS is clear that the criteria for sports is competing at the highest level, so why would martial arts notability be obtained by beating beginners? Papaursa (talk) 21:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The second part of WP:NSPORTS says "meet any of the qualifications in one of the sports specific sections." If they have come to a consensus on talk pages and AfDs that only black belts are notable, they should clarify the point in their essay. But I'll change my vote to Weak Keep because common sense does hint to brown/purple belt competitions being less notable. Luchuslu (talk) 02:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't see any consensus, do you? Bearian (talk) 21:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I do. The people voting keep are doing it because they believe finishing 3rd in a purple belt division (the next to lowest division at that tournament) shows notability. The question then becomes, do you believe martial arts competitors have to compete at the highest level to be notable? Papaursa (talk) 00:56, 15 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. Courcelles 00:09, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Komera Rwanda

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

Non-notable organization lacking Ghits and GNews of substance. Appears to fail WP:ORG. reddogsix (talk) 00:23, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm seeing some stuff out there in google.it but it's mostly blogs and listings. Doesn't seem to be notable enough at this point, perhaps too soon. I would have expected a lot more coverage by Italian media. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Dear FreeRangeFrogcroak,
  thank you in advance for the attention paid to my page. I'm vice-president of Komera Rwanda. I wrote this little page to know our volunteering in Africa which, though very small, is important because it helps the poors in a remote village of Africa frequently close to other bigger organizations such us United States Agency for International Development (USAID).
  Our association is very well known in Italy at the local level. You can get more details about Komera Rwanda looking at the page we have on Italian Wikipedia. Komera Rwanda in a non-profit association and volunteers are not paid, and they pay themsenves travel costs.
  Thanking you again I'm waiting for your kind reply.
  --Huye (talk) 08:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - None of which has to do with deletion policy, notability, and whether this is a properly documented part of human knowledge that gets to be in an encyclopaedia. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 12:24, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:RS and therefore notability. Huye the creator of the article - is Vice President of the association = WP:COI. -- MST☆R ^{(Happy New Year!)} 12:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Anyone who makes a valid argument, in accordance with deletion policy and based upon the provenances and depths of sources, is welcome to participate in AFD. We don't exclude people for being close to the subject. We generally exclude them for acting like children, and mucking about with sockpuppets and the like, which is not so far the case here at all. Uncle G (talk) 12:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - That may be so, but has the editor provided a reasonable rationale to keep the article they created on their organisation? -- MST ☆R ^{(Happy New Year!)} 13:00, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Further, I have re worded, as I can see how it may have been taken out of line. Thanks, -- MST ☆R ^{(Happy New Year!)} 13:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you all for attention paid to my page on Komera Rwanda. I only tried to explain what's the aim of Association and what Komera Rwanda does in Africa. Komera Rwanda is a non-profit association and there is no economic interest in publicizing it. The page describe objectively the facts and activities of Komera Rwanda (without further comments, praise or exaggeration)and all of these are documented by references. I should like that Komera Rwanda has a page on English Wikipedia to allow at non-speakers of Italian language to know the existence of the association. The only advertising that I would get is to raise awareness of our work, alongside that of many other voluntary humanitarian non-profit associations, in order to improve the conditions of the poorest people in the world. I remit to you the choice whether to delete or keep the page. I'll respect your decision. I thank you all, however, for the attention you paid to my page. Best regards. --Huye (talk) 14:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are several items of coverage around, but nothing really substantial, e.g. La Repubblica, Vivere Genova, Prima Da Noi, Citta Di Genova. --Michig (talk) 09:00, 13 January 2013 (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 01:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH and also, in my opinion, WP:RS. Organization is still too small and local to be notable, and no realistic indication that it will become notable in time. The WP:COI issue does not help, although I accept the good faith of the author. David_FLXD (Talk) 05:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Probably good faith edit, but still WP:COI and not notable. Creator's defense is just WP:NOBLECAUSE, which doesn't make it worthy of inclusion. --Drm310 (talk) 11:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. —Ed!^(talk) 16:26, 14 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 redirect to Hellenic Polytheistic Reconstructionism. MBisanz ^talk 01:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Labrys religious community

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

Article about a neopagan group is sourced almost entirely from the groups website. I could not find any significant secondary coverage. Mangoe (talk) 01:40, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep: Out of the 12 sources cited only 5 are from the organization's website and 4 cover the same subject so majority is 3d party links.

As the area of pagan studies (especially concerning the non English world) is very recent, any research still needs to be based on primary sources as well, which naturally comes from the original organizations. This is more than evident on the initial wikki article for contemporary Hellenic Polytheism here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellenic_Polytheistic_Reconstructionism Where most citations are based on the own mentioned organization's sources. On top of that for the most part specific article is outdated containing even dead links , inactive organizations and giving a picture of the subject from the past decade. As Labrys organization has been active and influential in later years, reference to it is important to give a more accurate picture of current situation on the subject.

Furthermore due to the language restrictions (Native Greek) there is difficulty in citing English based sources but all original statements in this article are valid and confirmed from outside sources as well (feel free to suggest which ones should be used from the below). Impact of Labrys work on contemporary reconstruction groups within and outside Greece is for example evident from the fact that group is mentioned in almost all other active organizations on the subject, some of those mentioned in the original wikki article as well

http://forum.hellenistai.com/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=199

http://forum.hellenistai.com/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=835

https://sites.google.com/site/hellenionstemenos/Home/festivals/noumenia

https://sites.google.com/site/hellenionstemenos/Home/festivals/agathos-daimon

http://hellenismos.us/f/YaBB.pl?num=1315511966/4

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ReligioRomana/message/11901?var=1

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-22984.html

same thing applies for most Greek language sites of contemporary paganism or other not affiliated with any organization.

http://kallisti.writingkaye.com/2009/05/gods-in-house.html (http://kallisti.writingkaye.com/2011_01_01_archive.html)

http://kerukeion.blogspot.co.uk/2009/05/hellenic-household-worship.html

guides on Hellenic paganism

http://www.scribd.com/doc/79094681/How-to-practice-Greek-Religion-Hellenismos

or other related Wikki articles : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hecate

Finally interviews and articles of labrys members -as authorities on the subject of Hellenic polytheism- have appeared in magazines in Greece

http://www.e-typos.com/content/entheta_pdf/11hlios.pdf

http://www.archetypo.com.gr/index.php/el/joomlaorg/prohgoumena-mystery/image/63-mystery-61

and in many cases in newspaper concerning various actions most well documented one being the public debate that rose last year concerning an archeological site. A protest group with thousands of members was created for the preservation of the site for which Labrys chairman at the time was the spokesman, mentioned in Greek newspapers of high circulation i.e:

http://news.kathimerini.gr/4dcgi/_w_articles_civ_2_03/04/2011_437753

http://www.skai.gr/news/greece/article/164699/sugedrosi-diamarturias-gia-ti-diasosi-tou-vomou-tou-dodekatheou-/

http://news.kathimerini.gr/4dcgi/_w_articles_civ_100114_11/03/2011_435387

Finally for the multiple citation concerning the Attika Dionysia festival other third party sources could be used (it was even mentioned in a religious debate on Athens Indymedia) but these contain less info in terms of what the festival consists about, or pictures, so they were not preferred, but can be used instead

http://12thespis.wordpress.com/2009/05/02/attikadion/

http://www.hellenicreligion.gr/doc/attikadionusia1.htm

http://sfrang2.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/blog-post_26.html

http://www.12830.gr/forum/arthrografia/dionysia-2010/

https://athens.indymedia.org/front.php3?lang=el&article_id=1116290 — Preceding unsigned comment added by LefteriosA (talk • contribs) 17:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The organization does seem to be discussed on and off the in the Greek blogosphere, but I'm having trouble finding any mention in other sources, even in Greek (admittedly, Greek sources are less well-indexed than American newspapers or books, so harder to search comprehensively). Of the links mentioned above, most are forum posts or blogs, and the ones in major newspapers (e.g. the Kathimerini links) don't actually mention the organization—the connection seems to be indirect, in that these are op-eds written in Kathimerini by someone affiliated with Labrys (but the op-ed doesn't say so). So I'm skeptical. --Delirium (talk) 18:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree about blogs and forums but this is how pagan community oparates worldwide so most research inevitably comes from these sources. I have never seen a pagan organisation (at least Hellenic) mentioned in any book although as a movement it is pretty important not only in Greece but outside as well. Obvious from the fact that there are numerous "Hellenic polytheists" from countries all over the world. None of these are mentioned in books, this doesn;t mean they don;t exist or that they do not have an impact. For example I just saw searching for other sources that just yestarday, a very controversial minor political figure in Greece made a public statement of how he want's to be buried (there is a grave issue of minority rights for such things in Greece) naming Labrys as executioners of his last rights. http://iphicratisamyras.blogspot.gr/2013/01/blog-post_3264.html?spref=fb And yes indeed the organisation is not mentioned in the Kathimerini articles. On the second one it is evident that Christos Panopoulos (Χρήστος Πανόπουλος) is the spokesman for this protest group I mentioned and he is the one (unmentioned) being interviewed on the first. Of course we wouldn't expect Kathimerini or other newspaper to mention Labrys or any other group for just religious reasons (which is what Labrys is mainly about) so this is an indirect mention to polyhteism due to the news fuss around the protest. --LefteriosA —Preceding undated comment added 07:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JayJay^{What did I do?} 00:23, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

merge a line for identification & redirect, to the article mentioned above, on Hellenic Polytheistic Reconstructionism. I am not convinced there is substantial discussion of this particular group DGG ( talk ) 05:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hellenic Polytheistic Reconstructionism where it is already mentioned. --Michig (talk) 08:49, 13 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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 00:27, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Keadle

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

I have put off tagging for deletion. Gave the benefit of the doubt while election was ongoing, but he lost again! Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Do not really think he meets WP:GNG either. Only real possible claim is a single two year term on county commission. Otherwise, just a perennial candidate. We don't generally keep those who are just candidates for office and the other info doesn't really amount to notability. Some bio in article is only sourced from his own site. Just smacks of electioneering from either his campaign or supporters. See strange history of being moved in and out of WP:AfC. Don't think AfC questions were really answered before made live again last time. Wait until he's actually been elected or appointed to something higher up. JoannaSerah (talk) 18:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. JoannaSerah (talk) 18:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. JoannaSerah (talk) 18:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

weak Delete Under the current interpretation of WP:POLITICIAN, a losing candidate of a major party for national office is not considered notable. Personally, I think that's absurd, and would hardly fill up WP, for it amounts to about 600 people every two years. But that's the established practice. Given that the person who moved it from AfC is a well-established editor here, I'm notifying him DGG ( talk ) 05:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks like a wannabee cum also-ran. will reconsider when/if he gets elected to any significant elected office. Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 06:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can't get too excited about this one, and obviously I have to keep in check my "continued desire to override the wishes of the community" but it seems that there are two or three articles about the guy in the Statesville Record and Landmark. He also gets coverage form the notable blog Redstate [7]. Rich Farmbrough, 11:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Also covered in Huffington Post [8] and McClatchyDC over slightly embarrassing "birther" remarks. Rich Farmbrough, 11:33, 2 January 2013 (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 00:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in North Carolina, 2012#District 8. Subject does appear to have some local notability, but generally fails WP:POLITICIAN. That being said, the article can be recreated as a redirect page, and small but neutrally worded content regarding his 2012 primary run can be added to the area where the redirect will be targeted. Otherwise, delete per failing notability as described in WP:ANYBIO, as insufficient significant coverage can be found outside of the context of the election.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Redirect to a particular election does not work since he ran in three years for Congress, once as the Republican nominee. Under WP:POLITICIAN, he appears to just meet criteria #3, with some national coverage of his 2012 race and (probably) his earlier race where he was the nominee. The fact he was elected to a local office indicates he is more than "just" an also ran.Enos733 (talk) 06:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 08:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks like he generated attention for being a Birther. That in conjunction with his election I presume him notable under WP:GNG. If he had run an airtight campaign and lost he probably would have failed. But he goofed up a couple of times and gave the press fodder. A token consolation for him. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 09:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:POLITICIAN, doesn't rise to notability levels for any of his other activities RadioFan (talk) 01:17, 19 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. After relisting, the consensus seems to be keep. DGG ( talk ) 04:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Solomon's Lodge

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

No assertion of notability. The "oldest continuously operating lodge in America" that this lodge claims is not supported by secondary sources, and it is in fact not this lodge, but St. John's Lodge on Boston, having been created minutes after the formation of the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts in 1733 that holds that distinction. MSJapan (talk) 23:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It claims that it is the oldest, but even if its not then it's very old and it's the mother lodge of Georgia. JASpencer (talk) 23:49, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a response to the above, no Masonic jurisdiction has a "mother lodge" - because of the way the United Grand Lodge of England was initially formed, it is a requirement that no less than three lodges can form a Grand Lodge, and many times, permission must be requested from elsewhere to do so. MSJapan (talk) 06:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the above statement is more or less intended to imply that the statements of editors here take priority over official statements of a Masonic group, that certainly raises serious questions regarding whether any internal statements of Masonic groups qualify as reliable by our standards. John Carter (talk) 17:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... I had the same thought... however, the Grand Lodge of Georgia does refer to it as their "mother lodge" on the GL webpage. It is difficult to deal with the misuse of technical terms, when the very people doing the misuse are those in charge (who should know better).

I am going to speculate here... when some of the brothers of a Masonic lodge hive off to create a new lodge, they often refer to their original one as the "mother lodge" (and the new lodge as its "daughter"). It may be that all the other lodges that formed the original Provincial Grand Lodge of Georgia were "daughter lodges", off shoots from Solomon's Lodge. This would account for the usage (However, this is speculation... again, we need sources, sources, sources!) Blueboar (talk) 15:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was the only lodge in Georgia for 50 years .At least one of the three lodges that created the Grand Lodge was a schism from Solomon, and another one was Solomon. The other two lodges no longer exist (as well as all of the first seven chartered in Georgia) which is another reason why it's known as the mother lodge. Finally they really, really treasure it as a 250 year old lodge is pretty notable to them. 20:10, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

"Notable to them"? Where is that standard reflected in policy? Why are we discussing this? EveryW Wikepedia article edit page contains a notice which says, "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." RiverStyx23{^talk_email} 20:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Qualified Delete The lodge may indeed be notable, but if so the article needs to support that. An organization's own claims are not sufficient. Notability must be established by third party sources, and these sources must be cited.
RiverStyx23{^talk_email} 17:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep - The lodge is singled out for a brief mention in S. Brent Morris's Complete Idiot's Guide to Freemasonry (page 31). Note: Morris does not repeat the claim that it is the "oldest continuously operating lodge in America", but he does say that it was founded in 1735 in Charleston, SC - "where it still meets today" (I take this as an allusion to the claim, without actually repeating it.) It's not much, but it is something. (oops, never mind, I just noticed that Morris is talking about a different Solomon's Lodge) Changing opinion to: Qualified Delete - while it is logical to assume that an old lodge like this should be notable, WP:ORG calls for independent sourcing to actually establish that notability. We do need more than just the organization's own word for it. Blueboar (talk) 23:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin there are in fact 10 citations currently, of which one is the Solomon's Lodge website. JASpencer (talk) 09:04, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The claim for notability is being made on the organization's claim of of being the oldest lodge. The other citations do not support notability, but other facts, such as who were members. If you believe the organization is notable then don't argue the point here. Instead update the article with verifiable, reliable third party sources that support that. "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. All content must be verifiable. If no independent, third-party, reliable sources can be found on a topic, then Wikipedia should not have an article on it. * * * No matter how "important" editors may personally believe an organization to be, it should not have a stand-alone article in Wikipedia unless reliable sources independent of the organization have discussed it. * * * An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it. * * * Qualifying published works must be someone else writing about the company, corporation, club, organization, product, or service." Notability_(organizations_and_companies). RiverStyx23{_submarine^target} 13:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Insinuating that these sources aren't independent is not enough. Could you tell me where Keswick publishing, the Grand Lodge of Georgia and the Georgia history society aren't independent of the subject? JASpencer (talk) 15:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Grand Lodge of Georgia is not independent, but more to the point age is not ipso facto enough for notability. RiverStyx23{_submarine^target} 15:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the Grand Lodge of Georgia superior to the source. And saying that it's the mother lodge is quite a large claim for a non notable lodge. And I suppose that the Texas Grand Lodge is also not independent? JASpencer (talk) 15:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Superior" is the wrong term to use... in some things a Grand Lodge is "superior", in others the local lodge is actually "superior" (its sort of like asking whether the US Federal government is superior to a US State government?... the answer depends on what you are talking about). Solomon's Lodge is actually a voting member of the Grand Lodge of Georgia... so there is an argument to say that neither is independent of the other when it comes to sourcing. The Texas Grand Lodge would be independent of both (but it does not comment upon the topic). Blueboar (talk) 21:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Oglethorpe founding makes it notable. Ahwiv (talk) 00:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Actually, it absolutely and unequivocally does not, because notability is not inherited. Additionally, if only two men founded it without a charter from elsewhere, then it wasn't a legal lodge at the time of its founding. That is unlikely, so there were certainly others involved. MSJapan (talk) 04:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not relevant in this case. It might not make a paper encyclopedia, but this is not one of those. Still a keep. Ahwiv (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the first part of MSJapan's comment is definitely relevant... WP:NOTINHERITED does indeed come into play here... the fact that an organization was founded by a famous person is not a valid reason for Wikipedia to have a stand alone article on the organization. At best, it means we can include a passing mention of the lodge in the bio article on Oglethorpe. AGAIN... what is needed are reliable independent sources that do more than just mention the lodge in passing (in the context of discussing something else). If such independent sources exist, then the topic is notable enough for a stand alone article... if not, it isn't. So far, the sources are either not independent (SPS sources by the lodge itself and by the Grand Lodge of which it is a member), or are no more than passing references in the context of discussing something else. That simply is not enough to justify a stand-alone article on the lodge.

That said... It probably is enough to mention the lodge in several other articles... I would encourage those who wish to keep to think about merger as an alternative. Blueboar (talk) 13:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're taking the notinherited to the point of Reductio ad absurdum. Notable people can do notable things. Also, if there are problems with the article, identify them in the article and allow time for them to be fixed. Don't reflexively delete the. Ahwiv (talk) 14:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not so. The article has to stand on its own merits. That's the whole point of WP:NOTINHERITED. RiverStyx23{_submarine^target} 15:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notability is apparently established already. The Georgia Historical Society webpage on the topic is from an independent source, and is certainly nontrivial, and the Tatsch book probably provides the second reliable source required. In addition to the error made above, about "no assertion of notability," which is clearly counterindicated, as the age could be seen as an assertion of notability, I notice that there is perhaps another error which has occurred in this process, the error in the "proposed deletion" template that most local or regional lodges are not themselves inherently notable. That may be true, it is hard to tell, but there is certainly no clear evidence to that effect, and on that basis the assumption made is not itself apparently supported. Also, we do have some guidelines somewhere, I forget where, that indicate that lack of verified notability of what might be called marginally notable topics, such as this one, is not in and of itself sufficient grounds for deletion. If the deletion goes ahead anyway, I believe that there is good reason to request deletion review shortly thereafter, as I believe the editors who frequent that process are probably the most familiar with what is and is not considered sufficient established notability for articles of marginal notability. John Carter (talk) 17:14, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are thousands of masonic lodges all over the world. I would think it pretty obvious that the vast majority are not notable and do not justify mention in either a print encyclopedia or Wikipedia. RiverStyx23{_submarine^target} 17:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I regret to say that your own comment above seems to be placing personal opinions, such as what you do and don't think "pretty obvious," over policies and guidelines, which in this case specifically include WP:NOTPAPER. I can and do see, for instance, that I myself, as a Catholic, would question the inclusion of a separate article on each and every religious order of the Catholic church, some of which are and never have been of any particular size or notable accomplishments. But that is a personal opinion, and more or less in conflict with our existing policies and guidelines. Also, I see no clear evidence that any print encyclopedias have been checked by you. It may well be that this group, and any number of others, for all I know, is included in one or more print encyclopedias regarding secret societies, Freemasonry, or whatever. I think it is perhaps extremely unfortunate if any of us decide to act on our own possibly less-than-perfectly-knowledgable-and-objective opinions before actually trying to determine if such print sources might actually exist. I am myself this week going to try to get together lists of articles included in such reference sources, and I think it might make a lot of sense to at least review the results of that search before making any such perhaps premature judgments. One obvious example which comes to mind is that the 4-volume reference Religions of the World includes a separate article on Eklesia Niue, the predominant church in Niue, which at this point so far as I remember has less than 2,000 living there. I've have often found that the reference sources for topics often disagree with my own opinions, and have learned on that basis not to try to rush to judgment regarding them. John Carter (talk) 18:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So every single statement, no matter how obviously true, must be sourced, even it is not made in the context of an article? One is not asked to prove negatives. That's the entire purpose of the notability requirement. What evidence do you have that every lodge, or most every lodge, or whatever IS notable? No one here is suggesting putting personal opinions in articles. But I assure you I am QUITE knowledgeable of the facts concerning this topic and it really is going out on a limb to suggest that polices require proof, or even logic. They don't require proof (or logic). They require consensus. RiverStyx23{_submarine^target} 18:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At no point did I make any such statements as the above editor indicates, nor do I believe that any of my comments necessarily lead to the conclusions you drew above. I find the clearly personal comments above quite inappropriate, and i very strongtly urge him to refrain from further clearly argumentative comments' as some of those above. I also ask the closing admin to review the possible biases of some of the editors involved. Consensus primarily refers to those who do not have a clear and overriding POV regarding a topic. Policy and guidelines are rather specific that obvious matters of POV should be regarded as such. I very sincerely ask the above editor to refrain from any futther attempts to put words in the mouths of others, and rather to confine any further comments he might make to matters of policy and guidelines, because it is actually consensus based on them which matters. While I am not in a position to judge whether the above editor is the expert he declares himself to be, I do also believe that even in such cases where indidivual editors declare themselves to be "experts", it is still, in general, policies and guidelines which matter. I believe the policies and guidelines are rather clear in this case, and that an final decision, based on them, by a neutral and nonbiased party, is what is sought, not the preemptary decision of a self-described expert. I very sincerely hope that any further comments deal directly with the matter under discussion, and not such off-topic digressions as some of the comments I have seen. John Carter (talk) 19:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's back up here; this whole conversation is not going to help the admin resolve this AFD. The only disagreement I had was with your statement that "I notice that there is perhaps another error which has occurred in this process, the error in the "proposed deletion" template that most local or regional lodges are not themselves inherently notable. That may be true, it is hard to tell, but there is certainly no clear evidence to that effect, and on that basis the assumption made is not itself apparently supported." I disagree that I have to prove a negative when it comes to policy, and the policies I'm referring to are the ones about not having to cite references to show that the sky is blue, the requirement to cite references to show positives, not negatives (i.e., notability) and the fact that this forum - and the opening templates, are not articles for which citing references are inapplicable. Also, since it seems to have bothered you, I will point out that I described myself as very knowledgeable, not as an expert. For that matter, I assume you are just as knowledgeable, which is why I cannot understand why you would feel most (or however many) local lodges are notable to the extent that you believe a statement to the contrary in an AFD template requires support. It just seems obvious. RiverStyx23{_submarine^target} 20:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The obvious statements made by editors to the effect that a group of individuals who have clearly identified themselves as associated with the Freemasons which to somewhat arbitrarily limit the number of articles related to the topic is a very serious concern, and seems to my eyes rather clearly violate WP:OWN. John Carter (talk) 17:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that local level lodges are not inherently notable comes directly from WP:ORG notability guideline... which states: As a general rule, the individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not considered notable enough to warrant a separate article - unless they are substantially discussed by reliable independent sources that extend beyond the chapter's local area. (bolding mine for emphasis)

Once again... it all comes down to sources, That's what anyone closing the AfD needs to focus on. Are there sources? Are they independent? and do they substantially discuss the topic? Everything else is simply irrelevant. Blueboar (talk) 22:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First, while I am sure that the closing admin will be extremely grateful to you, Blueboar, for apparently attempting to dictate the outcome of this discussion, I note that there are several other issues beyond those you have unilaterally declared to be the only relevant ones. Also, I note that consensus around here generally refers to consensus of those who do not have a clear bias regarding the matter, and there are serious questions regarding that matter as well. Therefore, if it is not too much of a burden to you, would it be possible for you to discuss the matter objectively and neutrally, rather than rather presumptuously attempt to dictate the outcome of this discussion? John Carter (talk) 02:39, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 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, MBisanz ^talk 00:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly passes WP:GNG. GNews search[9] shows that this lodge has been receiving national newspaper coverage for its antiquity going back to the 19th century. Examples:[10][11][12][13] --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 1926 is not "the 19th century", most of the hits are obits of members, and one source in 1849 says the lodge in Boston is older (which it is). Therefore, I'd say that the sources after that are incorrect, or at least contradictory. Also, in many of those sources, the information is coming from the group, so it's not independent. So again, why is this lodge notable? Because it says it's old? That's it? MSJapan (talk) 02:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there are doubts about the accuracy of the claim, the remedy is to attribute the claims to the sources, not to try to pretend that the claims don't exist. Whether or not it's actually oldest, it's still obviously notable.--Arxiloxos (talk) 06:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's is a good approach, but hardly helpful: No one has done that. The claims have been challenged; if they remain unsupported or unverifyable then the article should go until such time as it can be resubmitted with appropriate, verifyable support. RiverStyx23{_submarine^target} 13:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT - This should be simple... The article is governed by our WP:ORG notability guideline... which states:

As a general rule, the individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not considered notable enough to warrant a separate article - unless they are substantially discussed by reliable independent sources that extend beyond the chapter's local area. (bolding mine for emphasis)

I am sorry to keep harping on this, but... that is what should determine this AFD... do we have sources that mention the lodge? Yes... but those that discuss it substantially are not independent ... and those that are independent are not substantial. We need both at the same time. All of the other arguments for and against are simply WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDON'TLIKEIT arguments. I wish this lodge had sourcing that met our criteria, and it is a shame that this isn't the case. But... the simple fact is... there just isn't the right kind of sourcing. Given our guidelines, we really have no choice. Despite its age, it simply does not pass WP:ORG. Blueboar (talk) 22:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice argument, but factually wrong. Historical Society of Georgia and the book "Freemasonry in the Thirteen colonies" are both independent of the subject. It doesn't seem you have applied your test to each of the ten sources. JASpencer (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MSNBooks returns some 1,950 results on "Solomon's Lodge," "Georgia" here. One of those, a history of Charleston South Carolina, reproduced in part here, may or may not qualify as "Local", because I haven't checked the publisher, but it certainly also provides some substantive content regarding the lodge. JSTOR also returns at least 17 matches for "Solomon's Lodge", "Georgia" here, which I can't check right now, but it seems some relate rather substantively to the topic. I also wish to call to the attention of the closing administrator some of the comments made on this page by some of those who have identified themselves in wikipedia as Freemasons, particularly those statements which indicated something to the effect of individuals associated with that group wish to limit the number of articles for reasons other than encyclopedic ones, which raises rather serious concerns in and of itself. If I could find this material as quickly as I did, I wonder why those who much more regularly deal with this subject could not, or would not, be able to find them as well, unless, of course, perhaps some editors were motivated by purposes other than improving the encyclopedia, such as perhaps, wishing to arbitrarily limit the number of articles related to Freemasonry. In my own limited activity at deletion review, it has been brought to my attention that if there is a claim of notability, even if the sources required to establish notability are not yet necessarily produced because of the possibly limited amount of sources immediately available, that we should err on the side of inclusion for at least a time, so that the required notability can be established. I believe the closing admin will probably be more familiar with those arguments than myself, and, honestly, I am rather busy with other things, which is why I am not producing them, hoping the closing admin will know them. If not, as I already stated, I believe that there is more than sufficient cause for deletion review to be requested if, for whatever reason, this article is deleted.

My apologies for the erroenous inclusion of the link to the SC lodge. Over the past few days, I, stupidly, was searching for info on that group, not the Georgia one, and the force of habit kicked in. I hope that is taken into account when my lack of finding the sources I claimed to be seeking didn't produce any useful results, I was looking for the wrong one. Stupid of me, and I trout-slapping myself for it right now, actually. And, unfortunately, I don't have any Georgia travel guides here to check to see if they mention it. I do note that none of the SC guides I found mentioned that lodge, though. John Carter (talk) 17:37, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as iterated above. "As a general rule..." doesn't mean always. You always have a choice. Ahwiv (talk) 01:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article seems well sourced. Both the person who first {{prod}}ed the article, and the nominator, have challenged whether the lodge is the oldest. As per WP:VER, that is not relevant, if WP:RS state it is the oldest. Further, even at the time of the {{prod}} our article didn't say this lodge was the oldest. Our article said, accurately and neutrally, that the lodge claimed to be the oldest. Geo Swan (talk) 22:25, 9 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 no consensus. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 20:43, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Group FMG

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

Looking at the references, none except the NYT are notable, reliable sources. The NYT article is primarily about another companies acquisition by Group FMG, not group FMG itself. Skrelk (talk) 08:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 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, Courcelles 03:22, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JayJay^{What did I do?} 00:15, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Divided - I'm giving a lot of thought to this one because my searches have provided several results but the bottom line appears to be that their biggest accomplishment appears to be Ceros. Google News searches provided this (mentioned in the columns January & August), this, this, this, this and this. Several of these news articles have said "FMG" is short for "Fresh Media Group". A different search including the full name provided more results here with several of them being acquisitions from 8 years ago (Vision, Devil7 and ISDN Media) and are through the same sources, PrintWeek or press releases. I also found a deal with American Media Inc. and this article from 2007 suggests they were originally based in London but a deal with an Indian company created connections to India and the United States. This also mentions one of their former employees, who nows works at Wyndeham Press Group. It seems they haven't been very active recently but I found this Pod1 deal with Fluid, Inc. which Pod1 appears to be the most recent FMG acquisition in June. The Exec Vice President, David Bonthrone talks about the Pod1 acquisition here but aside from that, it didn't receive much attention. A News search with the CEO, Dilip Keshu, provided several press releases. I'm divided, I think they haven't achieved much notability despite these acquisitions but I also think the article could be improved a little through adding them, especially with large coverage from PrintWeek. I would like to hear what other users think. SwisterTwister talk 20:28, 6 January 2013 (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 ✍ ✉ 03:31, 13 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. MBisanz ^talk 23:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bohol Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan Elections, 2010

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

Apparently a complete and total ripoff of Philippine barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan elections, 2010. CSD was previously declined. –H T D 17:40, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Adding these two articles as these are related to it:
- List of Elected Sangguniang Kabataan Chairmen of Bohol, 2010
- List of Elected Punong Barangay of Bohol, 2010
–H T D 04:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, as it appears to be a duplicate article, if the subjects are the same and the other is the common name, then as is normally done, a redirect is made to the regular article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a duplicate article. This should be about the elections in Bohol, but nothing in the article tells us about that; it's just a copy-paste of some of the sections in the main barangay elections article. Their subjects aren't identical; it's more like this one should be the daughter article of the main article. Think of it as the article under AFD is United States presidential election in Louisiana, 2012, while the article that it was ripped off from is United States presidential election, 2012. –H T D 14:09, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:10, 6 January 2013 (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) 01:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Bohol Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan Elections, 2010 as redundant and unnecessary fork. The lists should be kept. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - worthless fork. Not exactly high-profile. Note that the Sangguniang Kabataan elections are elections for relatively minor officials and usually do not receive much, if any, coverage, in Philippine media. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:25, 15 January 2013 (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 00:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Redundant. Bohol Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan Elections, 2010 has same contents with the Philippine barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan elections, 2010. List of Elected Sangguniang Kabataan Chairmen of Bohol, 2010 and List of Elected Punong Barangay of Bohol, 2010 articles are unnecessary. Think of having these approved... others articles with this same type of contents will then follow.--AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 10:17, 27 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.