Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 December 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 7 December 9 December >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran talk to me! 09:58, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tenby International School, Penang

[edit]
Tenby International School, Penang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails to satisfy our notability criteria. Contested PROD. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:44, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:02, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:02, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran talk to me! 09:57, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mister X (prisoner)

[edit]
Mister X (prisoner) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • From the Talk Page: Half of the sources here are referenced to Richard Silverstein's Tikkun-Olam blog -- an unreliable, self-published source not acceptable for Wikipedia. They must be removed. Zuchinni one (talk) 23:00, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested action: Do not delete, instead remove the deletion nomination and admonish the nominator. The above statement that half the sources are referenced to Richard Silverstein's blog is flatly untrue. The articles attribute the existence of Mr. X unnamed government officials. The fact that the government sought an emergency gag order when Mr. X's existence was disclosed seems to confirm his existence. It's does not read as an urban legend when six credible journalistic outlets have confirmed his existence with government officials. Instead, this reads as an attempt to censor information pursuant to some government interest. Normally I would not ask, but one wonders as to ZucchiniOne's interest in deleting this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.203.30.15 (talk) 23:13, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Every single bit of the information in all of the major newspapers came originally from Silverstein's blog. The "government officials" mentioned all come via him. I've linked to it below so you can see for yourself. Zuchinni one (talk) 01:03, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


I second that. There are at least 4 credible news-sources describing the claims brought forth in this article, adding to the validity of it.

Don't delete There's news sources for it, from respectable newspaper like the Telegraph, Spiegel etc. If it's an hoax those newspaper haven't published corrections as of yet. Also, who the hell admonish someone for proposing that a (maybe at the time?) badly sourced article be deleted, come on guys. I vote for it to stay P.S. I'm not using my account because of how sensitive anything related is, but please take my vote into account70.30.27.170 (talk) 23:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like this article to remain. I'd like to know more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.194.65.51 (talk) 00:09, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Every one of the news sources references an article that does not exist. There is zero evidence for this person ever even existing. If this article remains it should be rewritten in the same style as articles for Bigfoot, UFOs, and the Loch Ness monster. Mostly I just don't think that such a poorly sources rumor should exist in article form on Wikipedia. Zuchinni one (talk) 01:00, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone wondering ... here is the original "Source" of Mr. X: http://www.richardsilverstein.com/2010/12/11/mr-x-imprisoned-in-israel-is-iranian-abducted-by-mossad/ Zuchinni one (talk) 01:00, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this AfD is a transparently obvious attempt to stop public discussion of this issue – which coincidentally just got a lot of eyeballs and clicks today via reddit.com due to being posted there. (This AfD possibly may also be an attempt to remove specifically this recently added information from the public eye.) 31.18.251.194 (talk) 01:04, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I like to think that Wikipedia is not a platform for verbal political sword-fghting, and as it stands, this article is just a poorly-referenced stub with a lot of allegations. There is only one affirmed source, where the secondary sources have all parroted the first. The fact that the only reference is a personal blog on which any conspiracy theorist can put forward any of his ramblings doesn't help in achieving and/or maintaining WP's standards in verifiability and neutrality. DELETE and go fight political battles elsewhere. (Personal attack removed)--Cyclopiatalk 01:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC) Mfhulskemper (talk) 01:29, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep Okay, the Reddit frontpage link and the touchy subject made this AfD a bit of a mess. Let's steer away from the political heat and let's stick to the editorial facts. This has been reported in multiple reliable sources, thus it is notable per WP:GNG. As such, the article should be kept. That there is no evidence for the person existing is irrelevant: what is relevant is that the rumour has been reported by sources. Merging to Ali-Reza Asgari is not an option because it is unknown (even if probable, if we believe the sources) that the prisoner is Asgari. --Cyclopiatalk 01:41, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The main reason it should be deleted is that it does NOT meet the WP:GNG guidelines for notability. Everything basically originated in one blog post which was referenced by several news agencies. Zuchinni one (talk) 02:32, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And that's the "referenced by several news agencies" part that complies with GNG. What do the news agencies use as their own sources, in turn, is not our business. --Cyclopiatalk 11:47, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And so a possibly made-up statement can be parroted by several sources -- who possibly accept it without any level of verification -- and then it becomes verifiable according to WP's guidelines? Although you deleted my statement calling for stopping political involvement here (yet you say the same in here, which I find... funny), I'm still for DELETE due to essentially having no reputable originating sources. I'm sorry.Mfhulskemper (talk) 19:07, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I didn't delete anything regarding "stopping political involvement": I deleted only your uncivil personal attacks, as anyone can see by checking the history. --Cyclopiatalk 19:15, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. If the subject exists, he's notable and our readers, myself included, want to learn more. If you need better sources, find better sources. I know the gag order may make it harder than usual to judge source quality, but if you think about it, the mere existence of a unusual gag order demonstrates that this subject is noteworthy and needs to be covered by NPOV media like us. --HectorMoffet (talk) 02:08, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • This isn't the way things work. If there aren't reliable sources are job isn't to decide that things are notable, and we don't go and include articles on things just because we personally feel they should be important. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:15, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's not that I personally feel it's important-- what do I know about these events? I come to this article blind. Rather, it's RSes like The Telegraph that confer notability. --HectorMoffet (talk) 07:50, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion about deletion seems to be dominated by Zuchinni. I am a Jew and I would like to see this Wikipedia entry concerning prisoner X refined and elucidated upon. I see no reason to delete it before the facts about this story are known. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrBillyKidd (talk • contribs) 03:21, 9 December 2012 (UTC) — DrBillyKidd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]


So I've been thinking about this and here are the facts as far as I can tell:

  • Basically the phenomenon of Prisoner X was started by the alleged brief appearance of a news article which subsequently vanished.
  • This was posted by a blogger Richard Silverstein Here. It was this blog post which was picked up by several major news organizations (so perhaps this does indeed fit the bill for Notablility ... I'm not sure)
  • All attempts to verify anything, even the existence of this person have been unsuccessful
  • There is a claim that an Israeli governmental official mentioned a gag order ... but that cannot be verified either.
So here is what I'm thinking ... if this article fits the bill for Notability ... then it should stay. However it needs to be clear in the article that basically nothing can be substantiated and the sources for the claims need to be very clear.
However keeping this article as if it was definitive and factual would be a disservice to wikipedia
Zuchinni one (talk) 07:13, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Zuchinni, I agree it should be reported as something unclear. As for notability, yes, the point is not the blog itself, but the fact it's been picked up by multiple news organizations. That's what confers notability. However, given that your problems with the article seem to be easily solved by editing, and thus not needing deletion, and given your last post, do you withdraw your nom? --Cyclopiatalk 11:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure if I want to withdraw the proposal for deletion right away. I guess where I'm concerned is that currently seems to be a minor urban legend ... at least in my view. And I wonder that if it remains on wikipedia will that be something that adds to the legend. On the other hand it HAS appeared in some larger media outlets, albeit only briefly, and so perhaps it is already part of the collective consciousness and thus should remain. I think I'd rather leave it up to the wikipedia admins, but there do seem to be some legitimate reasons to keep it, as well as some good reasons to delete. Zuchinni one (talk) 22:20, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can I ask you to elaborate? Especially for the "strong" part. Oh, by the way, regardless: articles are not supposed to be saved by "improvement": what is relevant for keeping or deleting is that the subject is notable, not the quality of the article. --Cyclopiatalk 00:39, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tom this is a different story entirely and does not mention the prisoner X legend. The only connection is that some people have speculated that if a prisoner X exists it might be the person mentioned here. Zuchinni one (talk) 21:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A cursory read of the articles shows zuchchine Inez's claims that a blog is the source to be false. Time to admonish him. I haven't seen any if those credible journalistic sources confirm the existence of ufo's, Bigfoot, Nessie, etc. the deletion suggestion is bizarre, the claims backing the suggestion lacking in merit, and the end result, if taken, censorious. If there is a concern about confirmation, the article can be written in NPOV. Delete is overkill. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.203.30.15 (talk) 03:18, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then I would suggest you do more than a cursory reading. Zuchinni one (talk) 05:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An in-depth reading of the article shows that the claims that a blog is the main source to be false. In addition, the blog you posted above from which you claim all the news stories originated is dated December 2010 while the news stories referenced in the article are from June 2010. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT: Struck out above. The blog links to an earlier post in June 2010. However, the newspaper articles quote other sources other than those in the blog and reports on the "uproar" that the incident caused in Israel. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are three legitimate news sources currently referenced. Every single one of them refers to the Y-net aka Yehidot Ahronoth news article. This article no longer exists and has been distributed by bloggers purporting that what they are blogging is the original article.
For example: From 'The National': "According to the report in Yediot Ahronot, which was distributed by various blogs before disappearing"
The ONLY source for what is supposedly the original Y-Net article is via blogs.
So ... we have an entire article that rests reports from news agencies, which are based upon the claims of a blog post, which is claiming to have replicated an article that no longer exists.
Please be a bit more careful before you accuse people of lying. Zuchinni one (talk) 09:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While the news stories do mention the reactions and speculations of various blogs, they do not quote any blog as the source of their information about the disappeared news story, nor is noting that various blogs have posted screen shots of the original Yediot Ahronot story an attribution. Your quote from The National attributes the information directly to the original article, so apparently it was noted by more reporters than Richard Silverstein, et al. They also quote Dan Yakir, chief legal counsel for the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, and The Telegraph quotes an unnamed “Israeli security expert”, neither of which are mentioned in Silverstien's original blog about Mr. X, so your claim that all of the information originated from his blog is unsupportable.
Please be more careful in your reading, both the material we are discussing and the comments of other editors. Nobody has accused anybody of lying. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The quote from Dan Yakir has nothing to do with substance of who Prisoner X is or if he exists ... it is his reaction to the rumors. Same goes for the "unnamed security expert", who simply suggested that anything going on might be more related to espionage than terrorism. But once again did not mention X at all. The bottom line is still that the only original source for any of this no longer exists.
However in regards to Cyclopia's comment below, he is correct. The issue of whether or not to keep an article is notability. I still think that there are legitimate reasons for keeping and deleting. But I also wonder if this might not be better off merged with another article that discusses one-off press phenomena. For example, if a newspaper in New Jersey published a piece about a UFO sighting ... which was later taken down, but still got picked up by other larger news agencies because a blog had kept the original article ... where would that belong on wikipedia? Would it deserve its own page, or be part of something larger? Maybe it could be added as a conspiracy section of this article Israel_Prison_Service or a similarly related article? Zuchinni one (talk) 22:57, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'd like to point out that all this discussion about where the news took their info from is irrelevant. News sources are secondary sources: their job is to report stuff from a plethora of primary sources. Blogs, personal communication, interviews, whatever. The point is not how robust or weak is their primary source, for our notability purposes: the point is that secondary sources decided "hey, this is notable enough for us to report". --Cyclopiatalk 10:52, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran talk to me! 09:56, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Waacking

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

Delete The only references to this so-called style of dance are found on one badly-designed (looks like a Freewebs site) website. Wikipedia is not for things you made up with your friends one day. Tikuko 21:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I found evidence here, here (minor mention through a dancer) and here. The first and last link here indicate it was popularized by Soul Train. Although this last link talks more about a group called Outrageous Waack Dancers than the dance itself, it may help the article though it may only stay a stub. Google News found additional evidence here (describes it as a street dance and was born through underground disco in Los Angeles) and here (describes it again as a street dance). Moving to archives, I found this and here both mentioning Kumari Suraj, "a pioneer in the hip-hop form known as “waacking,”. All this information together including its appearance through So You Think You Can Dance, a well-known program in the dance world, this article may have potential. SwisterTwister talk 22:04, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, good deal of secondary source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 17:12, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sourcing is not significant.--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:06, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This was given extensive coverage over two seasons of So You Think You Can Dance, a national prominent US dance competition, I think the nation's most prominent dance venue at the time. Insomesia (talk) 01:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - An entire article about it from Ebony magazine. Perhaps localized to African-American community, so sourcing may not be very widespread. --Noleander (talk) 21:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 04:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sasha Yengoyan

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

Boxer who fails WP:NBOX. He's never fought for a major world title or been ranked in the top 10 (Boxrec currently has him at #79). The article's only source is his fight record. Papaursa (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 04:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Global Solid State Lighting Outlook

[edit]
Global Solid State Lighting Outlook (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previously PRODed. An article created to list what appears to be the agenda of an organization which in itself would probably fail WP:ORG. I believe this is an attempt at promotion of the website, but regardless of that, this fails WP:NOTDIR and/or WP:NOTJOURNAL. §FreeRangeFrog 20:05, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

this GSO is essentially the same to the GEO(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Environment_Outlook) and WEO(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Energy_Outlook), which are both listed on Wikipedia and served the function of letting the public know the comprehensive knowledge on that specific field. If you allow the GEO and WEO mentioned before, the GSO should also be allowed and listed here as well. Ledprofessional (talk) 12:36, 11 December 2012 (UTC) — Ledprofessional (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 19:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If those are also filled with nothing but WP:OR, they should be marked for AfD as well. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 02:09, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Please see here, in this link (http://www.isa-world.org/photoview.aspx?t=6&w=26&id=199) of the official website of the Non-profit Org of the SSL industry, from the first photo of the second row, you can see the spokesman who is holding the Book of GSO in his left hand, which proves the GSO is coming from previously published information and a reliable source. This link was just found so it's not in the references at the beginning. Ledprofessional (talk)

Ledprofessional (talk) 13:13, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

：This is not literature-related or business-related, it's knowledge that the public needs to konw on the specific field of Lighting options. Ledprofessional (talk) 03:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 04:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Manjit Kolekar

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

She's a non-notable MMA fighter. She's had 1 official fight and that was for an organization that's not even considered second tier (for men or women). She's not close to meeting WP:MMANOT.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 19:56, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is still a reality show, and she did win it, if it was sometime like Big Brother then no-one would dispute it, so what difference does make if it was a MMA reality show? The Ultimate Fighter is a notable reality show for MMA, as it airs on FX and has masses of viewers watching every season. The show was popular in India and because of this I believe that this debate should also be included in a reality show-related deletion discussion, so that a clearer view can be made. the same for Kario Isaac Maheo as well. If the Super Fight League does get to be a second tier promotion, then it adds strength to it, as even the nominator says it like fighting for a second tier promotion means something towards notability - "She's had 1 official fight and that was for an organization that's not even considered second tier (for men or women)." I will be bringing up the debate on WT:MMANOT right now so if anyone wants to join in, they can do so. Pound4Pound (talk) 21:33, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, even though it was a failed guideline proposal, it does state at the top of the WP:REALITYSTAR page, and I quote "This guideline is not Wikipedia policy; however, these criteria are considered a fair test of whether a Reality Television participant merits an article at Wikipedia." So because of this, to say that Kolekar is notable can be considered a fair view based on her TV success.
Comment WP:REALITYSTAR was a failed proposal. Consensus was NOT TO USE IT. It may be "considered to be a fair test, etc., etc." but that consideration does not come from the consensus, or it would be policy. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:12, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 04:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Artemij Sitenkov

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

Unsourced BLP of an MMA fighter with no fights for a top tier MMA organization. He fails WP:MMANOT and WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 19:47, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 19:47, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 04:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Breese

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

Subject has no fights for a top tier MMA organization. He fails WP:MMANOT. Being the champion of a second tier organization (BAMMA) does not show notability, although it means he may be someday. However, that's WP:CRYSTALBALL. Papaursa (talk) 19:40, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 19:40, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete both. Michig (talk) 19:40, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Bazi

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he has played in Iceland and Sweden. However, since the Icelandic Top Flight and the Swedish Second Division are not fully pro, this does not confer notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:36, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for similar reasons. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:38, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jovo Pavlovic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:38, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. I wasn't comfortable about speedying the article when I first reviewed it, but after trying to verify some of the participants I think db-hoax is probably a fair outcome. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 10:46, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here! (UK series 13)

[edit]
I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here! (UK series 13) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely unsourced content announcing a television program 11 months ahead when no such schedule exists. —Theopolisme 19:23, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: unsourced. FeatherPluma (talk) 20:03, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly a test edit. Seems to satisfy speedy G2 or G3 since the content is pure unpublished fabrication as opposed to unsourced speculation. Leaky Caldron 20:18, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is quite clearly a test edit and qualifies under G2. There is not one scintilla of published evidence linking any of these celebrities to a programme which, even if it is broadcast in 10 months time, guards it's contestants details until the broadcast date. The author has simply made up a hypothetical list and presented it in article form for a programme that is not yet scheduled. Leaky Caldron 23:48, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of the merits of G1/2, does {{db-hoax}} not apply here? —Theopolisme 03:51, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted per CSD A7. Non-admin closure. Safiel (talk) 22:53, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

King Felix

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

The article doesn't assert why it is notable. All the sources are either self-published by the group or blog posts. Mifter (talk) 18:53, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —Theopolisme 02:43, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The American (statue)

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

Non-existent possible future sculpture by non-notable artist. Per WP:CRYSTAL, an individual event should only be included if it is almost certain to take place. As one can see from reading the article itself, this is not the case here. There's nothing to show for this but a website and a series of postponements for more than five years. I think the community has waited long enough to see if this was going to pan out. A few news stories about how it might someday happen are not sufficient to make it notable. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 18:48, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The nomination reflects a misapplication of WP:CRYSTAL; this article isn't about a future event, it's about a project that has been the subject of substantial coverage over a period of years and is thus notable, whether or not it ever gets built. Notability is not temporary, and what's more, the project is still getting coverage: I've added two news stories from 2012 about recent developments. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The event is the actual building of the statue. I agree that notability is not temporary, but this was never notable in the first place. We gave it some time to let things work out, and they didn't. No statue exists, and (as the stories you added state) they don't even know what city it's supposedly going to be in. The article is essentially an advertisement for a 2004 fundraising campaign that never amounted to anything. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 20:15, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I know - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I don't know where you guys are getting the idea that CRYSTAL doesn't apply here; That section of the policy even specifically states that works of art need to be notable on their own merits. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 15:13, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So in other words it's WP:clearly notable? Man, I guess maybe it's been a year or two since I nominated an article for deletion, but is this really the state of AFD discussions these days? Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 01:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is an argument that waiting a little bit longer considering the renewed commitments, especially financially, would suggest that the unlikeliness of this project moving forward was only due to the issues of funds which seems to have been resolved. Enough notable third party sources indicate that this project is still a go. The amount of development content in the article further contributes to the case against WP:CRYSTAL. Mkdwtalk 00:07, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 17:37, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Affect of drugs on the adolescent brain and brain development

[edit]
Affect of drugs on the adolescent brain and brain development (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Looks like original research or novel synthesis of existing sources, which is not allowed in Wikipedia. The clause: "The purpose of this article and the rest of the research that will be presented in this paper..." indicates this, and a reading of the article seems to bear it out. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:18, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 04:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Élie Dupuis

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

May fail WP:GNG. Nominating on behalf of a user via OTRS. -- SarahStierch (talk) 22:49, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 6 November 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 00:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, he's not a "bad actor and a bad musician", he's got borderline notability in both, with sufficient coverage from reliable secondary sources. I agree that we should watch out for astroturfing in the references, but that doesn't appear to be a problem here. Altered Walter (talk) 11:43, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 16:22, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dojo Kamakura

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

DePRODed by creator without addressing the concerns. Article contains no plausible claims to notability and references are all primary sources. fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kamakura

Founded by Gerard Gordeau in 1976, it is one of the oldest kickboxing gyms in the Netherlands alongside Chakuriki Gym and Mejiro Gym.

Notable fighters

  • Andy Hug: K-1 World Grand Prix 1996 champion and runner up in 1997 and 1998
  • Mourad Bouzidi: World Champion WFCA, European Champion WKN, European Champion DRAKA
  • Daniel Ghiță: one of the greatest heavyweight kickboxers in activity, ranked the #2 heavyweight in the world, last It's Showtime World Heavyweight champion

Gerard Gordeau is the 1991 World Champion Savate and holder of the Dutch Champion Kyokushin Karate title for 8 consecutive years, but foremost known internationally for his fight against Teila Tuli in the first televised Ultimate Fighting Championship bout on 12 November 1993.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 12:05, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 14:23, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

C.J. Keith

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

Notability has yet to be established. If he gets a fight against a bigger name opponent, then recreate the page. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 09:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:39, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:39, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


KEEP: Anybody who has fought in the UFC is noteable enough for have an article. This JohnyBonesJones guy has vandalised MMA pages and he is now going around trying to get people's work deleted. I don't understand why anybody would do this unless they are anti-MMA. Please put a stop to this.Willdawg111 (talk) 18:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's just your opinion. Editors from the MMA project reached consensus several years ago on a notability criteria for fighters--see WP:MMANOT. Papaursa (talk) 19:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since when was I trying to vandalize any pages? JonnyBonesJones (talk) 09:59, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 14:19, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tom DeBlass

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

Notability has yet to be established. If he gets a fight against a bigger name opponent(which is unlikely considering his recent retirement), then recreate the page. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 09:22, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:12, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom. Right now its an almost been.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:13, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE!!!!!!
Anybody that is notable enough to have fought in the UFC, is a notable figure. There is no need to delete this page. Willdawg111 (talk) 18:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's just your opinion. Editors from the MMA project reached consensus several years ago on a notability criteria for fighters--see WP:MMANOT. Papaursa (talk) 19:19, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 04:08, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]
Navy-Marine Corps Classic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Basketball game whose first planned edition never took place, unclear whether this "classic" will take place next year. WP:NOTNEWS Travelbird (talk) 09:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 14:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zenbo Djoković

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

Football payer who had no apperances when he played in Serbia, and now is plying in the not-fully professional Mauritanean Premier League. No indication of other notability. Travelbird (talk) 09:00, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:50, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:08, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Badhan (blood donor organization)

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

None of the sources are independent so this fails GNG. Spartaz Humbug! 07:12, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not notable. DoctorKubla (talk) 09:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Rename to "Blood donation in Bangladesh". This is an extremely important topic, but there is a lot more information available than belongs under the banner of this organization's name. The claim that the page violates GNG is false, as the Daily Star article (the paper's main page is here) that is a major source is not affiliated with the organization. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 19:55, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The star article is written by someone who is described as (The writer is enrolled in the BBA program of Accounting & Information Systems, University of Dhaka) Personally that's not independant enough for a major paper and, in any event, you need 2 reliable sources to meet N. Spartaz Humbug! 03:31, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree, there is no statement that this student is affiliated in any way with Badhan, they are writing material about Dhaka University, in English, for a major newspaper. Their interest should be assumed to be that of a journalist unless there is evidence to the contrary. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:02, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd suggest that some latitude needs to be given for a country where English is not the primary language. Notability could be huge in Bengali-language sources, but most of us would be unable to read it. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indeed, but if you wanted to ask WikiProject Bangladesh to look out for some sources, I suspect that it would be reasonable to relist this to give them more time to find them. Spartaz Humbug! 18:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • As far as I can tell, I am forbidden to ask a wikiproject for input because that would fall under the heading of "canvassing". In any case, it is a rather new project and doesn't seem to have a history of people discussing particular pages. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:40, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sminthopsis84, a neutrally worded notice on a relevant Wikiproject (i.e. a project which specifically covers the topic) is considered a reasonable request for knowledgeable input on a discussion. It is not canvassing. You may wish to see WP:CANVAS for how to make an appropriate message. — CactusWriter (talk) 05:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I hadn't found that page. I think that somewhere deep in the tangle of wikipedia policies is a link to canvassing that would be much improved by linking to that page instead, but I can't find it now. Something to keep in the back of the mind. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:00, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. — CactusWriter (talk) 05:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — CactusWriter (talk) 05:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Trevj (talk) 08:49, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that may help. The Bangladesh project officially posts discussion on a separate noticeboard page, but participants might not have seen this matter posted there. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just renaming the article wouldn't make sense – you'd also have to completely rewrite it, so the end result would be... a different article. If you want to write an article on blood donation in Bangladesh, go ahead, but there's no reason to turn this article into that one. DoctorKubla (talk) 14:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in the hope of salvaging something before the original text became unavailable for building on, I've set up a trial version at that name, to see if it is acceptable. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:20, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 04:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Genealogical relationships of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom

[edit]
Genealogical relationships of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article states "Many genealogical relationships may be found between the Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom, and between the Prime Ministers and other significant historical figures." From my searches this does not appear to be a topic meeting our criteria for notability. Can I ask that !voters please try to show whether or not it meets these criteria? Dougweller (talk) 06:44, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Dougweller (talk) 06:37, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced. The book is as it says a study of Britain's elite, which of course includes prime ministers but I don't think that's enough.[16]. The book seems to have had little or no impact - Google Books turns up a few books which list it but don't seem to discuss it, a search on "Paul Bloomfield" and "Prime ministers" turns up nothing, so it's not even clear that it's a reliable source. Dougweller (talk) 18:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't say notable. I said this book seems to have had little or no impact. Restaurants get deleted when the only reviews are in minor local papers, for instance. And I'd argue that it is dubious as a reliable source. The GNG says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". You haven't shown plural sources for a start. You haven't shown that it directly addresses the topic - it may well do so, but a quote mentioning relationships between prime ministers would be helpful. Please give more details of what's in the book. Dougweller (talk) 06:04, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The impact of the book is immaterial, as it was published reputably and therefore can be assumed to be a reliable source. 1955 is a bit dated but usable if only to substantiate notability. More details of the contents would be desirable, but I'm sure the Colonel can provide them. Claritas § 18:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know where this comes from. I am looking at Bloomfield's Uncommon People and it is not about the genealogical relationships of Prime Ministers, at all. He has chapters that deal generically with heredity and family, and then dives into biographies of a few 17th and 18th century men whose descendants have had a disproportionate contribution to British elite society. These include George Villiers, Robert Barclay, Josiah Wedgewood, an extended Strachey-Pattle-Stephen kindred, William Cecil, and a Penrose-Arnold-Macauley-Trevelyan kindred. He discusses descent to writers, scientists, musicians, economists, Lords, school principals, College Fellows, and yes, Prime Ministers too. To say that this discusses the genealogical relationships of Prime Ministers in detail is simply untrue. It mentions some Prime Ministers along with the eugenicist and the Police Constable, but it is certainly not a detailed study of how Prime Ministers are related to each other. Agricolae (talk) 05:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was deleted by User:RHaworth. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 13:44, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SCP & CIO

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

Sort of a WP:DICTDEF and it fails to indicate why the acronym exists. In the absence of some explanation regarding the significance of the acronym, I don't see a purpose in retaining it. Monty845 06:41, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 14:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The World May I Championships

[edit]
The World May I Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence presented that this is a real event, and not just a few friends playing cards. Possible hoax. The-Pope (talk) 05:30, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Angels & Airwaves discography. MBisanz talk 04:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stomping the Phantom Brake Pedal

[edit]
Stomping the Phantom Brake Pedal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NALBUM not released yet! MJH (talk) 04:44, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A page might be considered once it is released. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 04:58, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Angels & Airwaves discography. Seriously, it's out in three days, so using the fact that it isn't out yet as an argument for deletion clearly won't apply for very long. The coverage that it has had has been brief news items, so a standalone article isn't needed. It is however, a valid search term and it should be merged and redirected to the article on the band's discography. An outright delete without leaving a redirect would make no sense whatsoever. Michig (talk) 14:11, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Angels & Airwaves discography. Okay, so this EP is coming out in 3 days, therefore once that day comes around, we will have more content to add to this page, such as sales figures, chart positions, critical reception, etc. I think it's just plain unreasonable to delete this page because of the minimum content on it right now. More content will come, just be patient. It can't hurt wikipedia too much to keep this article alive for just 3 more days. Plus, this EP will serve as a special point in the band's discography, consiering there are new songs on this, not just a compilation of old songs or a live album. It's new material. Don't delete this page. No reason to delete. Tglegoman4|Tglegoman4]] (talk) 10:49, 15 December 2012
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A redirect isn't needed as 'Role Play' will already take you to the Role-playing article via the Role play redirect. Michig (talk) 14:00, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Role Play

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

Fails WP:NSONG not even published yet! MJH (talk) 04:42, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 04:58, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep, nomination withdrawn and no one advocating deletion (NAC) Rotten regard 01:07, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jew and Improved

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

Fails WP:BK - If it wins the award it has been nomimated for, come back. WP:TOOSOON MJH (talk) 04:41, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note for an admin: WP:WITHDRAWN due to added references supporting notability. Thx Dr.K! --MJH (talk) 13:58, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are vey welcome. Thank you for your nice comments. :) Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 16:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per exchangemagazine.com from morning post, Just become a mensch, my son by winnipegfreepress, Converting to a better man by the star.com, Jew and Improved: How Choosing to Be Chosen Made Me a Better Man by quillandquire.com, Conversion: Ben’s Version ftom publications.mcgill.ca, Also on the show: American Hunks by Brett Josef Grubisic and David Chapman Jew and Improved by Benjamin Errett, reviewed by Catherine Gildiner from cbc.ca. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 05:37, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- What Dr K said. --Lw (talk) 06:50, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I disagree that the title must win an award to be notable. Significant honors are associated with making the shortlist, itself a recognized literary term. It's like suggesting a book is not a best seller for making the list unless it tops the list. Not withstand, Jew and Improved achieves the threshold of significant independent coverage. It exceeds the threshold by a significant margin in its region, north of the Great Lakes. Perhaps the title has not impressed the great melting pot, but that standard is not the measure for the English speaking population of the world. Whether or not this title survives this assault against including it in Wikipedia, it will remain a notable title. IMO, Best regards. --My76Strat (talk)  09:26, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - My terse AfD nomination was inelegant - it's not that I think it needs to win to be notable, it needed to be cited as reviewed and discussed in published editorials. Since getting on the shortlist, exactly that has happened as Dr. K discovered. I apologize for not being more diligent and improving the article myself.--MJH (talk) 15:20, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have stricken the portion of hyperbole where I characterized this as an assault. I admit that was way over the top and join my colleagues in acknowledging the good faith that motivated the nomination. It is certain that the article can be improved, and I should have made that happen myself. I apologize. Best regards. --My76Strat (talk)  17:00, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need to clarify Strat. An AfD nomination is always a stressful event for all concerned and that is why I avoid them, almost like the proverbial plague. Your expression comparing the AfD to an assault is understandable in that context while showing a passion for your work which is commendable. That the nominator happened to be elegant and understanding is an added bonus. Alas such confluence of good faith doesn't happen so often in AfDs but we are indeed lucky to have witnessed it here. In the end I was made aware of an interesting book and helped improve it in the process while meeting an old friend such as yourself. All in all a very nice experience. Best of the Season to you Strat and to all at the AfD. Take care. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 17:42, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The coverage so far is fairly light, but just enough exists for this to just squeak by. As far as the nom goes, I think that MJH did it in good faith. I know that AfDs aren't meant to be cleanup, but I'll be honest when I say that this is usually the only time some articles get any sort of editing/sourcing love. Thanks to the searching efforts of the above editors, there are enough sources for this to stay for the time being. Winning the award would be a nice addition, though.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 16:05, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the sources that are now present, and no reason to prolong this when it's eligible for being speedy-kept. Nyttend (talk) 18:44, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - filelakeshoe 14:14, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Baylis

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

Non-encyclopedic and of very questionable notability. Renton40 (talk) 04:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There hasn't been any substantive discussion on this over the past week (which in itself indicates non-notability), so I'll elaborate on what I first wrote. This article is essentially about some guy and what he's done, including how he leased his apartment (!), where he went to school, and that he traveled the word and will be self-publishing a book about it. Two refs are minor articles about his adventure; the following three refs are direct links to his own blog pieces, one of which is clearly self-promotion of his start-up business venture. I'm hoping others can take a look at this and chime in (especially since two of the delete votes were unsigned), but as it stands now, the consensus is Delete. Renton40 (talk) 18:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Go Phightins! 03:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Grigg

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO references are merely short bio listings based on his job. Not editorial discussion. MJH (talk) 04:24, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not notable PianoDan (talk) 04:44, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not notable? The chief executive of one of the largest property companies in the United Kingdom? The WP:ANYBIO guideline, quoted by MJH, does not rule out this entry. It comes under the section Additional criteria, which specifically notes A person who fails to meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability. The Basic criteria are that:

A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject. People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below. Articles may still not be created for such people if they fall under exclusionary criteria, such as being notable only for a single event, or such as those listed in What Wikipedia is not.

In this particular case, the subject has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject, and these are cited. Clearly, the Daily Mail and The Daily Telegraph, both major British national newspapers, considered Grigg notable enough to interview him about his life, position and beliefs, as did City A.M., a trade newspaper with a certified distribution of over 130,000 copies. Skinsmoke (talk) 16:42, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've just left some thoughts on your talk page. In summary, a {{notability}} tag might have been the better way to go here! Edwardx (talk) 17:21, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Skinsmoke sets out the arguments very well. But to be fair to MJH, I added those three sources AFTER he started the AfD. Nonetheless, a quick internet search would have shown plenty of quality sources, so a simple {{notability}} tag should achieve the desired outcome in these sort of cases. Edwardx (talk) 17:29, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and speedy close per Skinsmoke and EdwardX, whose sound analyses demonstrate yjat the nominator failed to perform even cursory checks on the subject's actual notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:40, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As well as the solid Telegraph interview that is now in place as a reference, the subject can be found figuring in the news with his considerable benefit package increase being questioned: [17]. And another point: AfD is not intended as a vehicle for inducing article improvement. AllyD (talk) 16:14, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 13:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stripe decor

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NAD MJH (talk) 03:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy keep, nomination withdrawn. Hut 8.5 19:26, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Teodoro Lonfernini

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

Fails WP:GNG WP:POLITICIAN MJH (talk) 03:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy keep, nomination withdrawn and no-one else has advocated deletion. Hut 8.5 17:41, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Logic (album)

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

Fails WP:NALBUM all criteria MJH (talk) 03:25, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Note for an Admin - WP:WITHDRAWN due to added references strongly supporting notability. I apologize for not being more diligent and fixing myself - too focused on NPP pass/fail. --MJH (talk) 15:35, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. (non-admin closure) -- Lord Roem (talk) 21:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Domain wall (string theory)

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

Obviously the three Domain wall articles should be consolidated, and then delete just the one since it has no references overcoming WP:NN MJH (talk) 03:19, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Consolidating articles on widely differing physical theories merely because they all possess codimension 1 topological solitons is not obvious or recommended. That they all use the same term for a mathematical construct instead suggests a disambiguation page, and indeed there is one for the term Domain wall.
But more importantly, the topic of domain walls in string theory looks notable itself. Google Scholar shows 130 hits for "brane domain wall" and 127 hits for "domain wall brane" and per WP:GOOGLEHITS, hits in peer-reviewed publications count for something. These include peer-reviewed publications in mainstream physics journals, such as
"Standard model on a domain-wall brane?", Phys. Rev. D 77, 124038 (2008), [18]
"Cosmology and fermion confinement in a scalar-field-generated domain wall brane in five dimension", Journal of High Energy Physics Volume 2007, p.62, [19]
"Domain wall brane in squared curvature gravity", Journal of High Energy Physics June 2011, p. 135 [20]
"First-order framework and domain-wall/brane-cosmology correspondence",Physics Letters B Volume 661, Issues 2–3, 20 March 2008, Pages 179–185, [21]
"Witten domain wall" (both the Horava and Seiberg varieties) scores another 10 hits on GS. For a secondary reference, there is a review in Science that includes a discussion of brane domain walls as a model for our 3D universe:
"Brane-Worlds", Gary Gibbons, Science 7 January 2000: Vol. 287 no. 5450 pp. 49-50 [22]
All these show string theory domain walls is a notable topic on its own. As such, the article has surmountable problems and should be kept. Mark viking (talk) 20:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Hello, I am the user who split these three articles apart in the first place. The original reason for doing so was because they were on different topics. Seeing as they were, I split them and marked them as stubs. I originally disregarded how many references there were for that article, but now that the users above have stated that there are multiple third-party references to it, I believe that the article has enough notability to remain separate of an amalgamated Domain wall. Of course, those references would have to be added, but we can get an expert on the subject matter to do that. OmnipotentArchetype0309 (talk) 00:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to internet forum. MBisanz talk 04:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bump (Internet)

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

Nonnotable topic has not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. This article was deleted by WP:PROD but recently restored. Pburka (talk) 16:07, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see the article content now. I agree it doesn't deserve it's own article, perhaps we could merge it with Internet Forum. Port A Build (talk) 21:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 04:03, 1 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, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 03:03, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 04:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

J.E.M

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

Notability not established, fails WP:NMUSIC. Existence of music on iTunes does not establish notability (especially in a compilation format based on a TV contest), and being a non-winner on said talent program does not do so either. MSJapan (talk) 05:06, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Made it to the Top4 of X Factor Sweden a series that the nominating user seem unfamiliar with as he nominated a similar article of one of finalists a final that is one week away and which will give the winner isntant notability. Anyway this one is within WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC, has made it into the Swedish Itunes lists with several songs. This is just one of many way too hasty AfD nominations by MSJapan.--[[--BabbaQ (talk) 12:07, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. BabbaQ (talk) 12:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't know how it is in Sweden, but I do know that in Norway being in the final of one of those shows (Idol, Norway's got talent e.g.) confers no notability. Most of the finalist (and even some of the winners) fades into obscurity after the show is over and fails WP:BLP1E. If reliable sources covers their music career for a long time after the show, notability can be established, but I feel it is WP:TOOSOON for an article. Mentoz86 (talk) 14:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you dont own a Crystball then I guess you cant tell about the future. But for now they are notable. If anything WP:TOOSOON is a good guideline for this AfD itself as it has been placed by a user with obviously no or very minor knowledge about X Factor Sweden and way too soon as the user has done on numerous articles in the past. --BabbaQ (talk) 15:47, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you mean by "for now they are notable". Either they are notable now and always will be, or they're not notable now but might be in the future. Notability isn't transitory - William Shakespeare hasn't done much for a few hundred years but he's still notable. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to TV series X Factor (Sweden). They've been eliminated so they're not going to win (winning would provide notability). They've not charted. They're not influential or important in musical history. They're not notable: this is well-established practice with talent show contestants. --Colapeninsula (talk) 00:33, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — sparklism hey! 08:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

:Note to closing admin: If we should follow WP:NMUSIC paragraph 9 Has won or placed in a major music competition. and also paragraph 12,then J.E.M is more notable then many other kept articles. Seems like more of a "reality show contestant" stigma then notability requirements that are evaluated. But lets see how it ends. --BabbaQ (talk) 00:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 03:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:33, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Sigma Iota

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

Non-notable fraternity. Few chapters, not recognized by any Greek umbrella group. Fails WP:GNG (as lacking coverage) and WP:ORG. Former expired prod, was revived by editor who failed to address notability issue. GrapedApe (talk) 15:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 03:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:26, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Israel

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

Two week old political union of two MKs with no references other than their announcement. Fails WP:NN. WP:TOOSOON MJH (talk) 01:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note for an Admin: WP:WITHDRAWN without delete votes. #57 has illuminated the notability below with an actual reference. Apologies. ---MJH (talk) 20:59, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment Defunct political parties are valid as well and have a place in the Political Parties of Israel cat. --Shuki (talk) 19:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator (me) Qwyrxian (talk) 01:32, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nuttin' Nyce

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

I can't find any evidence of notability for this now defunct band. I see a number of references that mention them, but every mention is either in a list of other bands (i.e., routine concert reporting), or reporting on a single song they had on a compilation album (i.e., not significant discussion of the subject itself); as such, there is no evidence that the group meets WP:ENT. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep for now - Google News archives found mostly event listings and one review here. The second page also provided this African American news article noting their music was featured in a Keenan Ivory Wayans film A Low Down Dirty Shame and a Whoopi Goldberg film Sister Act 2: Back in the Habit (also sharing soundtrack with Aretha Franklin) which would be notable achievements. This (second to the last result at the bottom) notes they were part of a Boston radio station "Black Music Month" celebration alongside Diana Krall. Google Books provided mostly Billboard results which charted them for "Most Watched Videos" but there is a Top Heatseekers charting here in July 1995. They also charted here for Jet magazine's Top 20 Singles also in July 1995. Two chartings for two consecutive weeks here and here for Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs in February 1995 and another charting here in December 1995. It seems they were best known in the 1995 area and probably lost attention after the first and only album. I found another Billboard result here, an advertisement for A Low Down Dirty Shame and I found a 1997 magazine result here as part of a remix album and another result here noting they occasionally worked with producer D-Nice. If the article looks good after I add these chartings and the other useful information, I may lean towards a full keep. SwisterTwister talk 05:57, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I attempted to search for other sources to support information such as their 1992 establishment but found nothing useful but I found this to confirm the disbanding after one album but it doesn't provide a clear preview window and an interview here which mentions the disbanding but not when, however, the Google Books link above should suffice. The lack of significant sources is probably due to their low activity, although they charted and had their music featured in two films. SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per SwisterTwister's sources, chart hits, etc.. They had a few minor hits in the US ([24], [25][26]) and also two top 75 singles in the UK ([27]). Their "Down 4 Whateva" video was the most played on BET. Song used in major film soundtrack. There are quite a few articles around that could be used as sources, e.g. [28][29][30]. --Michig (talk) 08:57, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
and for those with HighBeam accounts: [31]. --Michig (talk) 08:59, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My only concern is that we would probably have to add the chart history to this article rather than the album's article because while the album would contain information, there wouldn't be much about the group themselves. SwisterTwister talk 18:22, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I couldn't find anything when I searched, but you found it. I didn't know billboard could be searched directly. I'll withdraw this request; kindly add the info to the article when you have the time. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. SNOW--no other conclusion than delete is possible, but it does not match any speedy criteria. DGG ( talk ) 02:26, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How to help people

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

Unremarkable topic, unsourced, fails WP:GNG violates WP:ORIGINAL where Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Mediran talk to me! 00:22, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran talk to me! 03:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jacques Christela

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO, needs to win Miss Universe to get an article, per WP tradition. WP:TOOSOON MJH (talk) 00:18, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know where the nominator bases its WP tradition argument from? Just look at all Miss Universe main articles over the last few years. All representatives have articles. And TOOSOON does not apply as the women has won national titles for a major beauty pageant. I request speedy closure by the nominator. Or else I just say Keep for now.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:47, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are you implying? That hagabat and I are sockpuppets? I certainly hope not. Even a cursory examination of our histories should rule that out, completely. Rather than stirring the pot like that, perhaps you might consider that we had similar reasons for our opinions because those reasons are solid ones, and seriously, you might want to check on an editor's background before making such wild implications again. Be well. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 02:32, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss Haiti Universe, and do the same for all beauty pageant contestant articles where the only justification is that they competed in a pageant and there are no other sources to indicate notability. Mabalu (talk) 10:28, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Lightstreamer. MBisanz talk 04:11, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weswit

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

Primary sourced article about an apparently non-notable company. No indication of significance justifying an encyclopedia article. - MrX 01:50, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep — Each year Gartner, a well known independent information technology research firm, identifies new "Cool Vendors" in key technology areas and publishes a series of research reports highlighting these innovative vendors and their products and services. Weswit has been mentioned and analyzed in the report "Cool Vendors in Application and Integration Platforms, 2012", by Massimo Pezzini and Jess Thompson, published on 11 April 2012. The report's summary, table of contents, and download options are available on this page.
  • In addition to the above, Weswit was mentioned in the press in 2007, when TIBCO Software announced an OEM agreement with Weswit. For example, eWeek's journalist Darryl K. Taft mentioned Weswit for this. Original eWeek's article is available from Google webcache and as PDF from TIBCO.93.50.118.190 (talk) 19:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley (public) talk 00:18, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Lightstreamer. Notable product, but the company itself has no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources, and doesn't seem to be notable yet per WP:COMPANY. The only coverage I can see of the Gartner "Cool Vendors" announcement online is press releases. If they release other notable products and start to get more substantial coverage, then an article about them might be split off. Altered Walter (talk) 20:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) -- Cheers, Riley 00:11, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tune Group

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

hardly sourced article that looks like an advertisement The Banner talk 15:36, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I have added various references to the article. Obviously the text (and sourcing) can be expanded but the company appears notable. AllyD (talk) 19:13, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment while this should not be taken as supporting removal, I did not see anything approaching depth in the cited sources. As we look at references, I wonder if this "Closely-held" company has sufficient detail in its public coverage to support this article. Celtechm (talk) 17:35, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 04:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley (public) talk 00:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Revert to Redirect, as has already been done. If someone believes that this character should have their own article, please discuss it at Talk:Regular Show. Thanks. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 19:02, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rigby (Regular Show)

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

Subject is not notable, the page is completely unsourced, it does not conform to the manual of style, and all this information was directly lifted off the main article, Regular Show. Grammarxxx (What'd I do this time?) 21:53, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley (public) talk 00:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. No argument for deletion has been advanced by either the nominator or subsequent comments. (non-admin closure) KTC (talk) 00:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Hegarty (Galway Hurler)

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

This was at AfC and I do not know how to judge it, because i do not know the different leagues. I thought the fairest way to proceed was to bring it here. DGG ( talk ) 14:17, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close and revert back to AFC - This article is not ready for the mainspace, it was an AFC until the nominator approved it, then proded it as noted in the articles history. I previously declined it as it is not ready for the mainspace. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:56, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close and revert back to AFC Agreed, this should be sent back to AFC if a mistake has been made. Del♉sion23 (talk) 11:37, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per NGAELIC 3. Cited article makes it clear that he passes that test. Kevin McE (talk) 21:50, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:12, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why relist? There is no argument for deletion, and given that it meets notability standards, no grounds to delete. Kevin McE (talk) 08:38, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2012_December_8&oldid=1142635500"